The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10 - Pacific Shores Properties Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT I Agenda Item No.__ — October 27, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Office of the City Attorney David R. Hunt, City Attorney 949/644 -3131 or dhunt @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation – 492 and 492 1/2 Orange Avenue, 3309 Clay Street (Pacific Shores Properties, LLC) ISSUE: Did substantial evidence support the Hearing Officers denial of Pacific Shores Properties, LLC's ( "Pacific Shores ") application for reasonable accommodations, and, if not, what action should the City Council take pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.98.025? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council determine whether substantial evidence in the record supports the Hearing Officer's decision to deny Pacific Shores' applications for reasonable accommodations. If the City Council determines that substantial evidence supports the denial, the Council should sustain the decision of the Hearing Officer. If the City Council determines that substantial evidence in the record does not support any of the denials, the Council must then choose between one of three possible actions: 1. Reverse the Hearing Officer's decision and authorize the issuance of one or more of the requested reasonable accommodations to Pacific Shores, subject to such conditions the City Council determines are appropriate based upon the evidence in the hearing record; or 2. Modify the Hearing Officer's decision denying reasonable accommodation to Pacific Shores at some or all of the subject addresses based upon the evidence in the hearing record; or 3. Remand the matter to the Hearing Officer for further consideration, which remand shall include direction either to consider specific issues, or to conduct a de novo hearing on whether to grant, conditionally grant, or deny reasonable accommodation to Pacific Shores. If the City Council determines the Hearing Officer's findings are not supported by substantial evidence and directs action be taken based upon choosing one of the three options above, staff recommends that a resolution be prepared setting out the determination of the City Council and the findings supporting that determination and that the resolution be brought back to the City Council for approval and adoption as the City Council's final decision on the matter. Appeal of Hearing Officer's Qenial of Reasonable Accommodation Pacific Shores Properties October 27, 2009 Page 2 BACKGROUND: Newport Beach Ordinance No. 2008 -05 requires group residential uses that were in existence prior to February 22, 2008 and were not in conformity with the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008- 05 to apply for, and receive, a use permit in order to continue the nonconforming use at their current location, or cease operations. (Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") section 20.91A.020) Alternately, group residential uses housing disabled individuals may apply for exceptions from the provisions of the NBMC as a reasonable accommodation. (NBMC Chapter 20.98) All existing group residential uses subject to this requirement must have either received a use permit by February 22, 2009 or be within the administrative process in order to remain in operation past that date. (NBMC section 20.62.090.) Pacific Shores operates a sober living home in three adjacent dwellings in the Newport Heights area of Newport Beach. The dwellings are located in a residential district zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential) where, under Ordinance No. 2008 -05, such uses are not permitted or conditionally permitted. Staff estimates that at times the homes have housed over 50 residents. To remain in operation at its current location, Pacific Shores made the following requests for reasonable accommodation; (1) Pacific Shores requested that residents of its facility at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Ave. and 492 % Orange Ave. be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the NBMC; (2) Pacific Shores requested that the City no longer classify or treat the properties at 3309 Clay, 492 Orange and 492'/2 Orange as "Residential Care Facilities," as defined by NBMC Section 20.05.010; (3) Pacific Shores requested that the City classify the use of the dwellings at 3309 Clay and 492 Orange and 492'/2 Orange as a legal nonconforming use; (4) Pacific Shores requested that all code provisions applicable to the use of 3309 Clay, 492 Orange and 492 %2 Orange (including Zoning Code, Building Code, fire safety and any other applicable code) be applied to those properties in the same manner that those codes are applied and enforced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2; (5) Pacific Shores requested that the City allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed residential care facility located in a residential district zoned R -2, where such uses are not permitted unless a use permit has been applied for and received, pursuant to the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.020. Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Pacific Shores Properties October 27, 2009 Page 3 Although staff recommended granting some of the reasonable accommodations under certain conditions, those conditions were unacceptable to Pacific Shores.' Therefore, the Hearing Officer denied the applications and appeals of those denials were filed by Pacific Shores. Those appeals are now before you for consideration and action. 1. Pacific Shores' Uses. Pacific Shores operates a large sober living home for males and females in a duplex at 492 and 492 '/3 Orange Avenue and an adjacent single - family home at 3309 Clay Street. At the time of application and hearing, only the two units in the duplex building were in use as sober living facilities, as the single - family home at 3309 Clay Street could not be inhabited due to a stop -work order issued by the City Building Department in 2007 because of unpermitted construction. The units at 492 and 492 Y2 Orange Avenue were in use as sober living homes at the time the City enacted Ordinance 2008 -05, although City records indicate that the unit at 492 Orange Avenue was first established as a residential care facility use during the moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 2007 -08. Although the current number of residents in each facility is not known, Pacific Shores applied for reasonable accommodations that would enable the facility to house 20 residents at 492 Orange, 18 residents at 492 '/z Orange, and 12 residents at 3309 Clay (50 residents total.) 2. Reasonable Accommodation Applications and Hearings. Pacific Shores' counsel sent a letter dated December 10, 2007 but received by the City in late January 2008, making a general request for reasonable accommodation. (HR, PS -RA 00046) As this letter did not request any specific accommodation, no action was taken on the request until Pacific Shores submitted an application for a specific request for reasonable accommodation on September 24, 2008. (HR, PS -RA 00002) Pacific Shores amended its request for reasonable accommodation on March 10, 2009 with several new requests for accommodation. (HR, PS -RA 00113) The applicant requested an additional new request for accommodation on March 13, 2009. (HR, PS -RA 00115) Staff requested additional information in order to analyze the new requests, which was submitted by the applicant on March 19, 2009, at which point the ' Staff recommended granting the request that the use be treated as a nonconforming use, since staff had been treating the facility as if it were a nonconforming use all along. However, staff did not recommend permanently classifying the use as a nonconforming use, as the applicant's Request No. 3 was worded. The Hearing Officer determined that an accommodation continuing to treat the use as a nonconforming use could be granted. As Ordinance No. 2008 -05 requires nonconforming uses in residential districts to comply with certain use permit requirements or receive reasonable accommodation to remain in their current locations in districts zoned R -2, this did not change Pacific Shores' position. Staff also recommended granting Request No. 5 with certain conditions limiting the number and population of units used for sober living by Pacific Shores. Pacific Shores rejected these conditions. Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Pacific Shores Properties October 27, 2009 Page 4 applications were complete. (HR, PS -RA 000120) The hearing for Pacific Shores' requests was held on March 25, 2009.2 At the March 25, 2009 hearing, staff made the following recommendations: • Deny the request that Pacific Shores' residents be treated as a single housekeeping unit; • Deny the request that Pacific Shores' facilities not be classified or treated as Residential Care Facilities; • Grant the request as modified by staff that the facilities be treated as a nonconforming use, although not `classified" as a nonconforming use as requested by Pacific Shores; • Deny the request that all applicable codes (including Zoning Code, Building Code, fire safety and any other applicable codes) be applied to Pacific Shores facilities in the same manner as those codes are applied and enforced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2; and • Grant the request to allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed residential care facility, under certain limitations and operating conditions to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties, including limiting the population to 12 residents in a single unit. At the March 25, 2009 hearing, applicant's counsel rejected the conditions that staff found were necessary to recommend granting an accommodation that allowed the continued use of the existing facility. 3. Hearing Officer Action and Appeal. At the March 25, 2009 hearing the Hearing Officer heard testimony from City staff, the applicant and the public. After hearing the public testimony, the Hearing Officer denied all requests except Request No. 3, and directed staff to prepare Resolutions of Denial with Prejudice for Requests 1, 2, 4 and 5, and a Resolution of Approval with conditions proposed by staff for Request No. 3. The Hearing Officer indicated that under the conditions proposed by staff he might have been able to approve Request No. 5. However, as Pacific Shores had indicated unwillingness to accept the conditions of approval proposed by staff, he was unwilling to impose those conditions unilaterally on the applicant. (HR, PS -RA 00291) Under the conditions requested by the applicant, the Hearing Officer determined that the required findings could not be made and Request No. 5 should be denied as requested. (HR, PS -RA 00290) However, the Hearing Officer expressed willingness to revisit Request No. 5 if staff and Pacific Shores were later able to agree on conditions acceptable to the applicant that allowed the required findings to be made. (HR, PS -RA 00291) Therefore, Request No. 5 was denied without prejudice. 2 The full record of the proceedings at the Hearing Officer level as well as appeal documents is submitted to the City Council as the "Hearing Record." Each page of the Hearing Record is numbered consecutively beginning with HR, PS -RA 00001. References to the Hearing Record are denoted at "HR ", with the Bates stamp page number. Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Pacific Shores Properties October 27, 2009 Page 5 As staff was preparing staff reports, resolutions and staffing multiple hearings and appeals for seven other facilities' use permit and reasonable accommodation hearings between late March and June 2009, and Pacific Shores' requests required five separate resolutions, staffs completion of the Resolutions of Approval and Denial was delayed. The Hearing Officer's execution of the five resolutions took place on July 2, 2009. (HR, PS -RA 00331) At that time, a miscommunication between staff and outside counsel resulted in the executed resolutions not being sent to the applicant's counsel during the 14-day appeal period. To correct this error and afford the applicant the necessary due process, the resolutions were provided to the applicant's counsel on July 22, 2009, and the appeal period was extended for an additional 14 days. A copy of correspondence related to the delivery of the resolutions is attached as Attachment "2." The applicant filed this appeal of the Hearing Officer's denials within two weeks of receipt of the resolutions, on August 3, 2009. A copy of the appeal is attached as Attachment "3." DISCUSSION: Appeals of Hearing Officer decisions on reasonable accommodation requests are heard by the City Council. (NBMC section 20.98.025.) Appeals from a Hearing Officer's decisions on reasonable accommodation applications are subject to the "substantial evidence" standard under the Municipal Code. On appeal, the City Council reviews the administrative record from the Hearing. Officer's previous proceedings, and determines whether the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. If the Hearing Officer's decision is supported by substantial evidence, it must be sustained by the City Council. If the Hearing Officer's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, the City Council may reverse, modify and/or remand the matter to the Hearing Officer. 1. Standard of Review — reasonable accommodations. NBMC Chapter 20.98 establishes procedures for approval, conditional approval or disapproval of requests for reasonable accommodation. This chapter of the Municipal Code does not give the City Council the authority to address the issues "de novo," as the City Council would when reviewing decisions of the Planning Commission under NBMC sections 20.91.060 and 20.95.060. When considering permits for uses conditionally permitted in residential districts such as this one, and requests for reasonable accommodations, NBMC Chapter 20.98 establishes the City Council's standard of appellate review. Unlike procedures for appeals for use permits approved, conditionally approved or disapproved by the Planning Commission, NBMC section 20.98.025(A) provides in part: ... notwithstanding Section 20.95.060, the standard of review on appeal shall not be de novo and the City Council shall determine whether the findings made by the Hearing Officer are supported by substantial evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing. The City Council, as the appellate body, may sustain, reverse or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer or remand the matter for further consideration, which remand shall include specific issues to be considered or a direction for a de novo hearing. (NBMC section 20.98.025 (A) [Italics added].) a. The "substantial evidence" test and abuse of discretion. Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Pacific Shores Properties October 27, 2009 Page 6 When reviewing the decisions of a Hearing Officer on reasonable accommodation applications, the City Council is therefore required by NBMC section 20.98.025 to apply the "substantial evidence test." As discussed above, this means that the Council shall uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer if there is substantial evidence in the hearing record as a whole to support the decision the Hearing Officer made. Thus, the inquiry for the City Council is whether the Hearing Officer abused his discretion when he denied the applications for the accommodations. The concept of "abuse of discretion" is well defined in the law. In finding abuse of discretion, the City Council shall consider whether the Hearing Officer's action was arbitrary, capricious, in excess of his jurisdiction, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or without reasonable or rational basis as a matter of law. A prejudicial abuse of discretion is established if the Hearing Officer did not proceed in a manner required by law, or if his findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4" 1490, 1497.) City staff, the applicant and members of the public may make comments regarding this issue at the City Council's hearing on the appeal. However, in making its determination, the City Council is limited to a review of the hearing record from the proceedings below. It may neither substitute its views for those of the Hearing Officer, nor reweigh conflicting evidence presented to him. The decisions of the Hearing Officer are given substantial deference and are presumed correct. (ld.) The party seeking review (in this case, the applicant) bears the burden of showing that the Hearing Officer's decisions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record and the City Council "must resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative findings and determination." (Id.) "Substantial evidence" means "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." 121 Cal.App.4t' at 1498. Such substantial evidence may include facts, and expert opinions supported by facts, but not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, or clearly erroneous evidence. (ld.) Although facts in the hearing record might lead the City Council to a conclusion different from the Hearing Officer's, the City Council may not overturn the Hearing Officer's decision on the grounds that an opposite conclusion based on the same set of facts would have been equally reasonable or more reasonable. It also may not weigh conflicting evidence and determine which side has the better argument. Instead, it must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative finding and decision reached by the Hearing Officer. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 h 1344, 1356.) In summary, the City Council may overturn the Hearing Officer's decision only if it finds that there are insufficient facts, or insufficient expert opinions supported by facts, in the hearing record to support the Hearing Officer's decision. b. Was the Hearing Officer's decision supported by substantial evidence? Staff recommends that the City Council review the administrative record, including the analysis in staff report for the public hearing, the transcript of the hearing, and documents submitted by the public. After review, the City Council should determine whether the Hearing Officer's decision that certain required findings could not be made was supported by substantial evidence. Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Pacific Shores Properties October 27, 2009 Page 7 2. Appellant's Specific Grounds for Appeal. Pacific Shores' grounds for appeal of Requests No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are, to quote its appeals, "Denial of the request with prejudice." (Staff notes that Request No. 5 was denied without prejudice.) Pacific Shores' grounds for appeal of Request No. 3 was, "Granting the request in part and denying in part" the request that "the City treat the aforementioned properties as a legal nonconforming use by "grandfathering" the use of the properties as in compliance with the NBMC prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2008- 005." Therefore, the City Council should consider whether there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Hearing Officer's decision to deny Requests No. 1, 2, 4 and 5. The City Council should also consider whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's decision to grant in part and deny in part the applicant's request to be treated as a nonconforming use of property by grandfathering the use of the properties as in compliance with the Municipal Code provisions in effect prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008 -05.3 Appropriate Relief: Per NBMC section 20.98.025, the City Council may sustain, reverse or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer if it concludes that decision is not supported by substantial evidence. It may also remand the matter to the Hearing Officer for further consideration. If the City Council remands the matter to the Hearing Officer, NBMC section 20.98.025 requires that the Council either identify specific issues to be considered or direct that the Hearing Officer conduct a de novo hearing on the matter. Environmental Review: This application has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The City Council's consideration of this Agenda Item does not require environmental review. Public Notice: This agenda item has been properly noticed as an appeal of a denial of an application for reasonable accommodation (published in the Daily Pilot and mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property 10 days in advance of the hearing date) and in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). 3 A memorandum from staff who handled the administrative proceedings is attached, arguing the Council should sustain the hearing officer's decision and deny the appeal. Appellant has been given the opportunity to submit written argument of the issues (see email dated October 16, 2009 attached) but nothing has been received to date. We will forward any written submissions from appellant as soon as received. Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Pacific Shores Properties October 27, 2009 Page 8 CONCLUSION Staff requests that the City Council determine whether the decision of the Hearing Officer should be sustained or reversed, modified, or reversed with conditions, or remanded for further consideration. If the City Council reverses or modifies the Hearing Officer's decision, staff recommends that a resolution be prepared setting out and memorializing the City Council's findings and conclusions, and will bring that resolution back for City Council review, comment, and adoption at the first available meeting. Submitted by: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY lam' David R. Hunt, City Attorney Attachment 1: Hearing Record: Proceedings regarding Pacific Shores Properties, LLC, and related documents. Tab 1 Application for Reasonable Accommodation (PA 2008 -181) (RA 2008 -001) Tab 2 Public Notice of March 25, 2009 Public Hearing Tab 3 Correspondence with Applicant regarding Reasonable Accommodation Application Tab 4 Staff report for March 25, 2009 Public Hearing Tab 5 Staff Power Point presentation for March 25 Public Hearing Tab 6 Transcript of March 25, 2009 Public Hearing Tab 7 Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial - Request No. 1 Tab 8 Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial - Request No. 2 Tab 9 Hearing Officer's Resolution of Approval — Request No. 3 Tab 10 Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial — Request No. 4 Tab 11 Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial — Request No. 5 Tab 12 Application of Appeal of Decision of the Hearing Officer Tab 13 Documents submitted prior to close of March 25, 2009 Public Hearing Attachment 2: Correspondence with Applicant regarding Hearing Officer Resolutions Attachment 3: Applications of Appeal of Decision of the Hearing Officer Attachment 4: Staff Memorandum for October 27, 2009 appeal Attachment 5: Email dated October 16, 2009 IA09 -005831 CC staff Report for 10.27.09 Agenda ATTACHMENT 1 Hearing Record Public copy available for review at City Clerk's office or online at www.newportbeachca.gov (Under City Government, Current Projects & Issues, Group Homes, Resolutions) Staff Report. Pacific Shores - Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation ATTACHMENT 2 Correspondence with Applicant regarding Hearing Officer Resolutions Staff Report: Pacific Shores- Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation T. Peter Pierce From: Steven Polin [spolin2 @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, Juty 21, 2009 T21 AM To: T. Peter Pierce; Kit Bobko Cc: cbrancart@brancart.com; ebrancart @brancart.com; jdee @brancart.com, paul.e.smith @hud.gov; Dana.Mulhauser @usdoj.gov Subject: Re: pacific shores Peter, chris just sent you a response convening the substance of the telephone conversation the two of you had. Notwithstanding that conversation, Pacific Shores has not been served with the signed resolutions. My understanding of the appeals process is that the the time to appeal begins to run from the date of the signed resolution., which if true means the time has run to note the appeal. If I am wrong about this, please let me know. Perhaps we should talk later today to discuss this. Please call me on my cell phone, 202 - 390 -0238. If you are in depositions, let me know also. thanks, Steve Steven Polin Law Office of Steven G. Polin 3034 Tennyson Street, NW Washington, DC 20015 202-331 -5848 202 - 537 -2986 (fax) spolin2 @earthlink.net This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 -2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, attorney work - product or attorney - client privileged. If this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee(s), the recipient should immediately notify the sender by E -MAIL and by telephone 202 - 331 -5848 and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee(s), except with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee(s). Thank you. • (Original Message] • From: T. Peter Pierce <ppierce @rwglaw.com> • To: <spolin2 @earthlink.net>: Kit Bobko <PBobko @rwglaw.com> • Cc: <cbrancart @brancart.com>; <ebrancart @brancart.com>; <jdee @brancart.com>; <pau_.e.smith @hud.gov>; <Dana. Mulhauser @usdcj.gov> • Date: 7/20/2009 1:56:13 PM • Subject: Re: pacific shores > Steve -- I am in a depo but can tell you off top of my head that I mentioned the resos to Chris during a call on Thursday July 9 and asked whether an appeal to the Council would be forthcoming. I will follow up on my side of -hings re transmittal of resos. - > - - - -- Original Message - - - -- > Fro-: Steven Polin <spclin2 @earthlink.net> > To: Kit Bobko; T. Peter Pierce > Cc: Chris Brancart <cbrancart @brancart.com>; Liz 1Brancart <ebrancart @brarcart.com >; James dee <jdee @brancart.com >; paul.e.smith 1 +.:paul.e.smit'h @hud.gov >: Dana ;.:R')') ML)haus, Cr Sent: Mon Mon Jul 20 10 ;43:08 2004 > Subject: pacific shores > Gentlemen, I just found out that on July 2, 2009, Mr. Allen, the Nearing Officer, signed off on five separate resolu;.icns regarding Pacific Shore's request for a reasonable accommodacion. Frankly, I am suprised that as counsel I was not notified when this occurred. I am even more supr.ised since I have had correspondence and telephone conversations with each of you, and nothing was mentioned. Is there a reason, neither Chris nor' T were informed of this ?? > Steve > Steven Polin > Law Office of Steven G. Polin > 3034 Tennyson Street, NW > Washingtcn, DC 20015 > 202 -331 -5848 > 202 -537 -2986 (fax) > spolin2 @earthlink.net > This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 -2521 and intended to be delivered only to the > named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential, > proprietary, attorney work - product or attorney - client privileged. If this > information is received by anyone other than the named addressee(s), the > recipient should immediately notify the sender by E -MAIL and by telephone > 202 -331 -5848 and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted > material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, • stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee(s), except • with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee(s). Thank you. > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY David R. Hunt, City Attorney July 22, 2009 Sent via E -mail and U.S. Mal! Steven G. Polin Law Offices of Steven G. Polin 3034 Tennyson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20015 Christopher Brancart Brancart & Brancart Post Office Box 686 Pescadero, California 94060 Re: Pacific Shores Properties, LLC Reasonable Accommodation A09 -00124 Dear Messrs. Polin and Brancart: The resolutions signed by Hearing Officer Thomas Allen regarding Pacific Shores Properties' requests for reasonable accommodation are attached. Hearing Officers' decisions may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals must be initiated within 14 days of the date of this letter, and shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk's Office. (See Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.95.) If you have any questions or need further information, feel free to contact our office at (949 )644 - 3131. Rega �, ycJ�6' Catherine Walcott Deputy City Attorney Enc. cc: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager w /Enc. Kit Bobko, Richards, Watson & Gershon w /Enc. Janet Brown, Planning Dept. w /Enc. Polin 6 arancan 6om cw 07.22.09 M Resolutions 3300 Newport. Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, Califomia 92658 -8915 Tcicphone: (949) 644 -3131 - rax: (949) 644 -3139 - www.city.newport- beach.ca.us ATTACHMENT 3 Applications of Appeal Decision of the Hearing Officer Staff Report: Pacific Shores - Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Brown Leilani From: Steven Polin ispolin2 @earthlink.nelj Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:23 PM to: Brown. Leilani: pbobko; Kiff, Dave Cc: Chris Brancart: ebrancarl @brancartcom; james dee; Mark Manderson; Dana (CRT) Mulhauser; paul.e.smith Subject: Pacific Shores appeal Attachments: AppealolHearingOfftcersDecision res.5.pdf; AppealofHearingOlticersDecision res. t .Ddf; AppeatofHearingOfficers0ecision res. 2.pdf; AppealofHearingOfficersQecision res. 3:pdf; AppeafofHearingOfficers0ecision res 4.pdf Nis. Brown. please find attached Pacific Shore's appeals of the decision of Hearing Officer Thomas Allen denting its request la, a reasonable aceomntodatioo in accordance with VIIJt(: 20.94.40. Please tto not hesitate to contact me if you have arty questions or need additional information- Thank You. Steve Patin Steven Polin Law Office of Steven G. Polin 3034 Tennyson Street. NW Washington, DC 20015 202- 331 -5848 202 -537 -2986 (fax) col in2(rkanhlink. nrt This transmission is pmtectedbythe Electronic Communicatigns Privacy Act 19 V.S.C. sections 2510 -2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressees) and may contain infomtadon that is confidential, proprietary, attorney work - product or attorney - client privileged. if this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee(s), the recipient should inuriediately notify the sender by E -MAIL and by telephone 202 - 331.5848 and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material Ix read, used, copied reproduced, ,axed or retained by anyone other than the named addressee(s), except with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee(s). Thank you. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA2008 -181 Application No. HO-2009 -17 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202- 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Oran( Avenue Date of Hearing Officers decision July 22* 2009 Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties for (Description of application riled with Hearing Officer) . that the residents of the aforementioned addresses be treated as a single housekeeping unit Reasons for Appeal Denial of the request with prejudice. 'Padfc Shares Pmparties does not waive its right to cAallerw the iurisdiction of the city Couwil to hear Mis appeal by vftw of ete fad that the denial at the request was dated July 2. 2009. but the W fta(d was not given noeoe el the denial. By letter dated July 22..2009"City noldled applicant that the appeal period nalc'rrom dw date d the letter rwiwbhslandbV the provision M NeMC 20M,0W. Steven G. Polin °""""" "°'`� 08/03/2009 pn:a,4..oa ^a^. aa.. �ntwua ' e.rmdamarn>r arm Signature of Appellant Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received by Fee received Date C'Mocuments and SettingslsobornyUcal Settings \Temporary Internet FileslCoittent .Outlook1277DB2P71Appeal d Hearing Officer's Dedsicn.docx Revised 02-04-09 jib Project No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER 2008 -181 Application No. HO- 2009 -018 Name of appellant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202-331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Dale of Hearing officer's decision July 22* Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties 2009 for (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for reasonable accommodation that the City no classify or treat aforementioned properties.as "Residential Care Facilities" as that term is defined by NBMC 20.05.010 Reasons for Appeal Denial of ft request with prejudice. - Pacific shows Properties Goes not waive 0s 69M to chaSenge the Jtulsdtcd«t of IM City Council to hear this appeal by vitae Of em fact Orel the dental of me verplest was dialed July 2.2009. Mrt ea appkwl was Ml given notice of 00 denW. Ely Who dated July 22.2009. the Chy notified appfiraiy Mel the appeal peMd nags ka , the date ol the letW nawilhaandxtg d1e praAoon of NeMC 20.05.040. Steven G. Polin tu.nosw.w nsa.a,m Signature of Appellant OR OFFICE USE ONLY: i&m-- �-Received , Fee received 08/03/2009 Date - Date Mocurnents and SettingstsobomylLocal Settingsl7emporary Internet FleslContent .outlook5277082P71Appeal of Hearing Officer's Declsion.docit Revised 02-04 -09 yb CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA2008 -181 Application No. HO- 2009 -019 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202- 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 492112 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officer's decision my 22 20 Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties for (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for a reasonable accommodation that the City treat the aforementioned properties as a legal nonconforming use by "grandfathering" the use of properties as in compliance with the NBMC prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2008 -005 Reasons for Appeal Granfi% the request in pail and denying in part, by tailing to `grandfather" the use of the properties or ate Cay Cwwl to Bear Oils appeal by v"A of Me fact Mal am denial d am tegtmst was dated Jury 2.2009. lea 0m appkatd was mt glren notice Of Me de !X "By lanerdated JOY 22, 2000. Me VtY aotffied apps w Mel Die appeal p000d nms from 0m date d Ma letter notw4 stitti t9 am provision ce NDW 20 ,05.040. Steven.G. Polin Signature of' Appellant Owaaeaama�.tawm FOR OFFICE USE ��77kkMM. tVvv'� Received by Fee received 08/03/2009 Date Dat Q.00 Menu and SettingslsobomylLocat SeltingslTempordry Internet FileslContenLOuUooW77DB2P71Appeal of Hearing Offcees Decislort.do" Revised 02 -04 -09Ijb CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA 2008 -181 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Application No. HO- 2009 -020 Phone 202 - 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officers decision July 22 2009 Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties for (Description of application riled with Hearing Officer) Request for reasonable accommodation that the City apply all code provision to the use of the aforementioned properties, including but not limited to zoning, building, fire safety and any other applicable codes be applied in the same manner that those codes are applied and enitxced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2. Reasons for Appeal. Oenlal of the request with prejudim. •patmc shores pmperuss does na waive its right to diauenge the Jurisdiction of die City COMU 10 hear this appeal by vktue of the bul that do denial of the mq=lt was dated A4 2.2009. tat The applkenl was not given notice of the denal. By letter dated Jury 22.2009. the City nstAW appRCant that the appeal period runs hmh.the dale Of the letter nohvithstendkhg the provisbn of NBMC 20.05.0,10. Steven G. Polin a - "-w �.�...a- ..,�.�. 08/03/2009 Owe asuaar Slgnalure of Appellant Date FOR OFF CE USE ONLY• Received by Fee received Date - C'Mocuments and SetUrgslsebomAocal Settingsllremperary Internet Files \Content.OuUoakl277082P7Wppeat of Hearing Officers Decislen.docx Revised 02 -04-09 bb Project No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER 2008 -181 HO -2009 -021 Application No. Name of Appellant Pacifc Shores Properties Phone 202 -331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Dale of Hearing.Officer's decision July 22 . 20 Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties for (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for reasonable accommodation that the City waive the requirement of NBMC 20.91A.020 that unlicensed residential care facilities may be located only in a residential district zoned MFR with a use permit. ..Reasons far Appeal Danlal ai ltm request vAth prejudice. •Pacific St"tei Pmperties dog rots ive its fight ro.0WOOoge Uw jurisdiction Of the Cly Coenca to hear tttis appeal W vhtue of the tact Mat me del" of the requarA way dawd July 2.2009. but the app4cera was not girw notice dew denial ey ostler dawd Jbly 22. zoos. the CIIVM rwd oppNe9m met dw VX9Period rune ham the dare d me letter not"hsUfKr0 a dw NOMbo a nsW 20.es.040. Steven G. Polin Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Rt?ceiv r by Fee received 08/03/2009 Date hn Date C.Mocuments and SettingslsobcimAoc0j SetlingslTemporary Internet Ft7estContent .OutlookX277DB2P7Wppeal of Heating Officer's Decislon.docx Revised 02 -04 -09 gb ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Memorandum for October 27, 2009 Appeal Staff Report; Pacific Shores Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Counci FROM: Catherine Wolcott, Deputy City Attorn. Janet Brown, Associate Planner DATE: October 27, 2009 RE: Pacific Shores Properties, LLC (492 Orange Avenue, 492 % Orange Avenue, 3309 Clay Street) Appeal — Reasonable Accommodation (PA2008- 181)(RA 2008 -001) Staff Analysis and Recommendation Regarding Hearing Officer's Decision On March 25, 2009, the City held a public hearing before Hearing Officer Thomas W. Allen to consider Appellant Pacific Shores Properties, LLC's, ('Pacific Shores ') application for two alternate reasonable accommodations. On July 2, 2009, the Hearing Officer adopted five resolutions related to Pacific Shores' requests; four Resolutions of Denial of Reasonable Accommodation, and one Resolution Granting in Part and Denying in Part a Reasonable Accommodation. The staff report submitted by the Office of the City Attorney for this appeal sets forth the background of the application process, the public hearing, and the Hearing Officer's decision and adoption of resolutions. The City Attorney's staff report also discusses the "substantial evidence" standard of review that Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") Section 20.98.025 establishes for appeals of Hearing Officer decisions granting or denying reasonable accommodation. This memorandum focuses on a examples of evidence in the Pacific Shores reasonable accommodation hearing's administrative record that support the Hearing Officer's determinations. Staff concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's decision. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TEST GIVES DEFERENCE TO HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS Under the substantial evidence test, the Council must uphold the Hearing Officer's decision if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. If the City Council does not find substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's decision, the City Council may reverse or modify the decision, or remand the matter for further consideration, which remand shall include specific issues to be considered or a direction for a de novo hearing. (NBMC §20.98.025(A)) The City Council is limited on appeal to a review of the record from the proceedings below. It may neither substitute its views for those of the Hearing Officer, nor reweigh conflicting Pacific Shores Properties, LLC— Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 2 evidence presented. The Hearing Officer's decisions are given substantial deference and are presumed correct. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.41' 1490, 1497.) The party seeking review (in this case, the applicant) bears the burden of showing the Hearing Officer's decisions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record and the City Council "must resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative findings and determination." (ld.) "Substantial evidence" means "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (121 Cal.App.e at 1498.) Although facts in the record might lead the City Council to a conclusion different from the Hearing Officer's, the City Council may not overturn the Hearing Officer's decision on the grounds that an alternative conclusion based on the same set of facts might have been equally reasonable. It may not weigh conflicting evidence and determine which side has the better argument. Instead, the City Council must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative finding and decision reached by the Hearing Officer. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 "' 1344, 1356.) When reviewing an administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, the reviewing body considers all relevant evidence in the administrative record, beginning with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain the hearing officer's findings of fact. (TG Oceanside, LP v. City of Oceanside (2007) 156 Cal.App.4t" 1355, 1370 - 1371.) WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE IS CONSIDERED "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ?" In general, substantial evidence has been defined as "evidence of ponderable legal significance ...reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value." (156 Cal.AppAt" at 1371.) It has also been defined as "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Id) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) "If the word 'substantial' means anything at all, it clearly implies that such evidence must be of ponderable legal significance. Obviously, the word cannot be deemed synonymous with 'any' evidence. It must be reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value; it must actually be 'substantial' proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case." (DeMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 30 Cal.App.4'" 329, 336) (internal quotation marks omitted.) Substantial evidence may include facts, and expert opinions supported by facts, but not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, or clearly erroneous evidence. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa, 121 Cal.App.0 at 1498.) The testimony of a single witness can constitute substantial evidence. (Phelps v. State Water Resources Control Board (2007) 157 Cal.App.4"' 89, 99. ) This memorandum highlights some of the evidence in the record that is consistent with the standards of substantial evidence established in the court decisions quoted above. Some of the evidence was provided through the written or verbal testimony of members of the public who had personal experience with Pacific Shores as a neighbor. In certain matters, City staff testified to direct experience or knowledge of specific facts. The staff reports for the public hearing presented evidence as well as arguments to the Hearing Officer. III. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SUPPORTS THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISIONS Pacific Shares Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 3 In order for the Hearing Officer to approve or conditionally approve an application for reasonable accommodation, he or she must be able to make each of five required findings following a noticed public hearing. If one of the five required findings identified in NBMC Section 20.98.025(B) cannot be made, the Hearing Officer must deny the request. As shown in the four Resolutions of Denial for Pacific Shores, the Hearing Officer determined that not all of the five findings required by NBMC Section 29.98.025(B) could be made. This memorandum discusses some of the evidence in the record that supports the Hearing Officer's decision that required findings could not be made in each of Pacific Shores' requests for reasonable accommodation. The examples of evidence below are in no way an exhaustive list of the substantial evidence in the record; they are intended solely as an illustration for the City Council of the type of evidence in the extensive administrative record that supports the decisions of the Hearing Officer. Requests No. 1 and 2 - In Request No. 1, Pacific Shores asked that the City treat its residents as a single housekeeping unit, as defined in the NBMC. In Request No. 2, Pacific Shores asked that the City no longer classify or treat Pacific Shores' dwellings as "residential care facilities," as that term is defined by the NBMC. Since these two requests essentially asked for the same thing - that the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 not be applied to this facility - much of the same evidence supports the Hearing Officer's determinations for each request. At the March 25, 2009 public hearing, the Hearing Officer said it was very clear that the residents of the facility were not a single housekeeping unit. (HR, PS -RA 00287) He determined that granting these requests was not necessary to provide disabled individuals an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. He also determined that granting the requested accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning scheme. (HR, PS- RA 00288)' A. NBMC §20.98.025(B)(2) - Finding No. 2: The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION: This finding cannot be made. Discussion: The Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial for Requests No. 1 and 2 states that the Hearing Officer found that the requested accommodation was not necessary because the exemption requested went beyond what was necessary to achieve the goal of enabling disabled individuals to reside at Pacific Shores' facility, and that a total exemption from the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 was not necessary to afford residents of the facility the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling or similar sober living setting. (HR, PS -RA 00333, 00342) Examples of evidence supporting Hearing Officer's determination that granting the requested accommodation was not necessary to provide disabled individuals an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: ' All citations to the administrative record will be designated "HR, PS -RA" followed by the page number. The designation means Hearing Record, Pacific Shores — Reasonable Accommodation. Pacific Shores Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 4 Staff report for March 25, 2009 reasonable accommodation public hearing — (The exemption requested by the applicant is unnecessarily broad to achieve the goal of providing disabled housing. A request to be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit is essentially a request to be exempted from all the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 which place any sort of reasonable regulation on the operations of residential care facilities. This is not necessary, because there are many more narrowly tailored accommodations that could enable facility residents to enjoy the housing of their choice without depriving the surrounding neighborhood of reasonable conditions that mitigate the adverse secondary impacts ... A total exemption from the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008 -05 is not necessary to afford its residents the opportunity to live in and enjoy a dwelling or a similar sober living setting. " (HR, PS -RA 00070) Staff (Wolcott) testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing — (Wjould the disabled individuals be unable to live in the dwelling without the specific accommodation? And our answer is no ... There are many options that the Zoning Code allowed ... through which a residential care facility can house its residents without being treated as a single housekeeping unit. Furthermore, the necessity for financial viability or the therapeutic benefit of being treated as a single housekeeping unit has not been shown by the Applicant. Alternative requests which are more reasonable could afford the individuals an equal opportunity to ... live within the City of Newport Beach. "(HR, PS -RA 00195) Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing — '7n 2007, City staff estimated that there were approximately 315 sober living beds in the city. (These numbers are exclusive of the up to 213 ADP - licensed treatment beds.) Operators of many sober living facilities within the city have reported decreased census and vacant beds, which could provide potential Pacific Shores clients with an equal opportunity to live in a sober living environment without granting the accommodation. The evidence does not support the applicant's contention that treating residents of its facility as a Single Housekeeping Unit will change the availability of the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature, or afford them a substantially greater access to an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting." (HR, PS -RA 00072) B. NBMC §20.98.025(B)(4) - Finding No. 4: The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program, as "fundamental alteration is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION: This finding cannot be made. Discussion: The Hearing Officer indicated that the March 25, 2009 staff report set forth the evidence that supported his finding that disregarding the residential care facility classification or treating the facility residents as a single housekeeping unit would create a fundamental alteration to the City's zoning scheme. (HR, PS -RA 00288) Examples of evidence supporting the Hearing Officer's determination that granting the accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning program: • Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing — "Groups living as a single housekeeping unit can live together in any residential zone in Newport Beach. Groups not living as a single housekeeping unit are prohibited from establishing residences in any of the City's Pacific Shores Properties, LLC— Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 5 residential zones. There is, however, an important exception to the total prohibition of groups not living as a single housekeeping unit -- groups not living as a single housekeeping unit in residential care facilities of any size ... The NBMC provides many opportunities for new facilities to establish, and has provisions for existing facilities to continue in their current locations with appropriate impact mitigation. Licensed facilities housing six or fewer residents can establish in any residential zone of the City. °Although the residents of residential care facilities receive preferential treatment because of their disabled status, the NBMC's Zoning Code also applies regulations to unlicensed and larger (more than seven residents) licensed facilities. These regulations are in place to ensure that the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code can be achieved, and so the adverse secondary impacts higher density residential care facilities have on the surrounding neighborhood can be mitigated. "If the facility is treated as a Single Housekeeping Unit, it is entirely exempt from any of the reasonable controls the City might place on it. The City would be unable to make any reasonable effort to reduce the adverse secondary impacts such as noise, overcrowding, and unruly behavior by residents of applicant's facility to the detriment of neighbors, in addition to finding solutions to the applicant's disproportionate consumption of available on- street parking, and the overconcentration of facilities within a single block to the point of creating a quasi - institutional environment in this neighborhood. it is highly likely that most other similar facilities within the City would request a similar exemption, thus nullifying the Ordinance's effect entirely." (HR, PS -RA 00073 — 74) Examples of evidence of impacts reported by neighbors, which use permit conditions could mitigate, include: Public testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing (Soylamez) — '711 focus on the direct negative impact the situation has had on my home life and community. Most importantly, it's altered the composition of our neighborhood . . . There are now approximately 40 living in a footprint that was designed and zoned for two single - family homes.... People coming up at all hours, foot traffic, noise, smoking, trash, constant deliveries, cars double-parked. It's incessant and it's completely disrupted our neighborhood. Here's some specific examples. First of all, there's always lots of noise. At least four times in '08, I've walked over there to ask members to be quiet ... Second, there's always trash on the street on the front. There's no one that can help over there. There's no super. There's no manager. There's no accountability." (HR, PS -RA 000244 —46) Public testimony at March 25,2009 public hearing (Obbage) — "The primary reason we're opposed to this group home is based on facts, not speculation. For example, on the morning of November 6, 2007, an officer from the Orange County Sheriffs Department came to my home at 7 o'clock in the morning looking for information about a resident from 3309 Clay Street, which is located directly next to me ... The officer informed me that the individual they were looking for was being sought by law enforcement for misdemeanor and felony drug- related charges. The officer also informed me that these type of suspects are elusive and hard to find because they move from house to house within the drug and alcohol group network in Newport Beach ... There have been several other instances of loud profanity, secondhand smoke problems, and suspicious activity that have occurred since this operator bought the property and started operating a boarding house, and now it's a sober living facility." (HR, PS -RA 00249) Pacific Shores Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 6 Public testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing (Fabian) — "i reside at 3301 Clay Street, which is right on the corner closest (to the facility.) ... [A] couple years ago, I observed a young gentleman that was living in his car on the side of my home on Boise and Clay. And for two weeks, I tried to catch this individual, who, by the way, was doing drugs in his car. I witnessed, from my second floor bedroom, he was smoking. He had needles ... But I did report it to the Newport Beach Police Department. And after two weeks, they finally found him about 11 o'clock at night sleeping in his car. They addressed this individual and found in possession he had some sort of an address stating he. was a resident at 3309 Clay Street. They approached the residence, knocked on the door. The gentlemen that were there ... were asked to come out through the back, identify the individual. And sure enough, they had identified that he was asked to leave the home, because he was actually doing drugs, and he was kicked out. So he started to live on the street next to my home. Aiso, I did experience the 7 o'clock in the morning knock on the door by the sheriff, interrupting our family lives. Also smoking, trash ... And t also observed an individual leaving one of the residences and hiding a bottle of liquor behind a plant at the park where the children play on Bolsa Street." (HR, PS -RA 00249 — 51) Request No. 3 — Pacific Shores requested that the City classify the use of the dwellings at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 492 Y2 Orange Avenue as a legal nonconforming use. In the staff report for the March 25, 2009 public hearing, staff recommended granting this request. Although at least one of the dwelling units had established as a recovery facility during the moratorium and therefore was not considered a legal nonconforming use, the City was already treating Pacific Shores in the same way as it treated all other legal nonconforming uses in districts zoned for residential use. Therefore staff believed that granting the request did not undermine the purpose of any City program. However, at the March 25, 2009 public hearing, it became apparent from Pacific Shores' counsel's testimony that Pacific Shores had another interpretation of their request in mind — that the City should apply only pre -2008 laws to the Pacific Shores facility. The Hearing Officer directed staff to prepare resolutions that granted the accommodation of continuing to treat Pacific Shores as a nonconforming use, but clarified that the accommodation did not include 11 grandfathering," or classifying the use as exempt from the provisions of Ordinance No. 2008- 05. (HR, PS -RA 00289) The Hearing Officer adopted a resolution that granted in part and denied in part Request No. 3, agreeing to continue to treat Pacific Shores as a nonconforming use, but declining to make it subject only to the laws in effect prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 2008 -05. (HR, PS -RA 00352 — 59) The Hearing Officer found that treating Pacific Shores as a nonconforming use did not undermine the basic purpose of Ordinance No. 2008 -05, but exempting it from the provisions of the Ordinance did. (HR, PS -RA 00356) A. NBMC §20.98.025(6)(4) - Finding No. 4: The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program, as "fundamental alteration is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION: This finding can be made. Evidence in support of the Hearing Officer's decision: Staff report for March 25, 2009 reasonable accommodation public hearing — `The City is already treating the dwellings as nonconforming uses. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008- PaciFic Shores Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 7 05, owners and operators of all nonconforming uses in residential districts had the right to apply for a use permit after the ordinance became effective in February 2008 up until May 22, 2008. However, the applicant did not choose to submit an application for a use permit. "Per the ordinance, nonconforming uses in residential districts are subject to abatement at this time. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.62.090(6), a property owner may request an extension of the abatement period so as to amortize the property's owner's investment. "The applicant may also apply for Reasonable Accommodation, which is the subject of this report. "(HR, PS -RA 00076) • Testimony of Pacific Shores' counsel at March 25, 2009 public hearing — "Another (request) would be to say that we're a legal non - conforming use that is not in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. "(HR, PS -RA 00220) Staff (Wolcott) testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing — After hearing Mr. Polin's interpretation, it sounds like he would like to have the laws that were in place prior to January 22, 2008 applied to his facility ... which he was welcome to try to comply with anytime prior to January 22, 2008."(H R, PS -RA 00282) Request No. 4 — This request asked that the City apply all code provisions applicable to the use of the Pacific Shores dwellings (including the Zoning Code, Building Code, fire safety and other applicable codes) "in the same manner that those codes are applied and enforced upon single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2." The Hearing Officer stated that he agreed with the staff report's analysis that Pacific Shores' request that the Zoning Code be applied to Pacific Shores' dwellings as it is applied to single - and two- family uses was essentially asking for the same thing it asked for in Requests 1 and 2. (HR, PS -RA 00289) The evidence that supports the Hearing Officer's determination regarding Requests 1 and 2 supports this determination. A. NBMC §20.98.025(6)(2) - Finding No. 2: The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION: This finding cannot be made. Examples of evidence supporting the Hearing Officer's determination that granting the requested accommodation is not necessary to provide disabled individuals an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: • Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing — (fjhe requested accommodation is not necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal. opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The Newport Beach Fire Marshal has indicated that the changes needed to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) are not impossible to achieve, and not prohibitively expensive." (HR, PS -RA 00078 — 79) • Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing — "In 2007, City staff estimated there were approximately 315 sober living beds in the city. Most of these beds are in facilities that have similar population density or less population density than the applicant's facility .. . (Pjrospective residents seeking a sober living environment of this type will not be Pacific Shores Properties, LLC— Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 8 deprived of an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting of a similar type." (HR, PS -RA 00079) B. NBMC §20.98.025(B)(4) - Finding No. 4: The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program, as "fundamental alteration is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION: This finding cannot be made. (Discussion: The staff report and staff testimony at the March 25, 2009 public hearing discussed the provisions of the California Building Code which apply to residential care facility uses, and noted that City staff does not believe the City has the authority to waive enforcement of applicable state laws created to protect life safety for facility residents. The Hearing Officer stated that the City cannot grant a waiver of the California Building Code. (HR, PS -RA 00289) Evidence in support of the Hearing Officer's determination: Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing — 'The City did not create the distinction between residential care facility occupancies and single- and two - family occupancies. . .(and) did not create the CBC requirements of how life safety is to be protected for residents of alcohol and drug recovery facilities ...That distinction was created by the state's highest authority on fire and life safety issues, the State Fire Marshal. The State Fire Marshal's authority to establish life safety standards for various types of occupancies is based on authority expressly granted by the state legislature. California Health and Safety Code Section 13135 states that the State Fire Marshal shall adopt regulations for alcohol and drug recovery and treatment facilities." (HR, PS -RA 00077 — 78) Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing — "The State Fire Marshal made the determination that residential care occupancies with more than six residents ... require a certain degree of extra protection for their residents. Requirements for sprinklers, adequate egress, fire alarm pull stations and smoke alarms were adopted ... Waiving such requirements would result in a fundamental alteration of the CBC, because it undermines the basic purpose the CBC's life safety protections ... The 2007 CBC requires that R4 occupancies have commercial sprinkler systems rather than residential sprinkler systems installed. Residential sprinklers are intended to protect the occupants of a residence and give them sufficient time to evacuate a building. Commercial sprinklers are intended to extinguish a fire and prevent it from spreading to other structures. Again, waiving this requirement would undermine the basic purpose the regulation seeks to achieve." (HR, PS -RA 00080) Request No. 5 - Request to continue operation in a residential district zoned R -2, when such uses are permitted only in districts zoned MFR with a use permit. A. NBMC §20.98.025(B)(2) - Finding No. 2: The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION: This finding cannot be made. Pacific Shores Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 9 Discussion: At the Hearing Officer's request, City's Planning Department directed special counsel and staff in the Office of the City Attorney to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of necessity prior to the March 25, 2009 public hearing. The briefing was provided to the Hearing Officer and counsel for Pacific Shores. The briefing summarizes court decisions on the necessity requirement of reasonable accommodations from a variety of circuits. (HR, PS -RA 00451 — 57) The March 25, 2009 staff reports and testimony for Pacific Shores' accommodation Request No. 5 considered whether granting the requested accommodations was necessary to afford disabled individuals an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Staff found that at Pacific Shore's requested population of 50, granting the requested accommodation was not necessary to allow disabled individuals an opportunity to live in a large sober living setting. (HR, PS -RA 00083) However, the staff report noted that if Pacific Shores reduced its resident population to 12 in one of the large units, a finding of necessity could be made. (HR, PS -RA 00083) As NBMC Section 20.98.025(C)(4) authorizes the Hearing Officer to consider whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting, this evidence was appropriate to consider in determining necessity. Pacific Shores rejected staff's proposed alternate accommodation. (HR, PS-RA 00221) The Hearing Officer stated that the applicant had rejected staffs proposed accommodation, and he did not have the ability to unilaterally impose staffs suggested accommodation on the applicant, but he would be willing to hear the matter again if staff and the applicant came to an agreement on an accommodation that the applicant would accept. (HR, PS -RA 00290 — 91) The Hearing Officer said that the staff report analysis and findings spoke well to the issues, and he directed that the Resolutions of Denial contain the findings set forth in the staff report. (HR, PS -RA 00290) Examples of evidence in record that supports Hearing Officer's decision: Facility does not provide recovery environment that is not available in other available alternate similar facilities within the City. Supplemental briefing of staff to Hearing Officer for March 25, 2009 public hearing — A Fourth Circuit court found that when alternative accommodations for the disabled already exist in a jurisdiction, providing a financial benefit to a facility operator by allowing them to operate a facility of larger size was not necessary to provide disabled residents with housing ... In Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, 124 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 1997), the court analyzed the necessity prong of the reasonable accommodation analysis ... In this case, the operator of a group home for elderly and infirm requested a variance from the County to expand from 8 to 15 disabled and elderly residents ... The court held that the plaintiff did not carry its burden to show that the requested accommodation was necessary to provide the disabled with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. In support of its finding that the plaintiff facility operator failed to make the required 'necessity' showing, the court noted that 30 other similar facilities housing eight or fewer residents were already operating in the County. The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the requested expansion was necessary to make the home economically viable or that the expansion would be therapeutically meaningful for facility residents. Id. At 605.... A handicapped person desiring to live in a group home Pacific Shores Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 10 in Howard County can do so now at Bryant Woods Inn .. The unrefuted evidence is that the vacancy rate was between 18 to 23% in Howard County.' ... Id." (HR, PS -RA 00453) Staff report for March 25, 2009 reasonable accommodation public hearing — "The applicant seeks to house up to 50 disabled individuals in three dwelling units. It proposes 12 residents in one six- (or three) bedroom single- family home, 20 in an adjacent duplex with one 10- (or six) bedroom unit, and 18 in the 9 -(or six) bedroom unit. Prospective residents seeking a large sober living environment in Newport Beach have an ample supply from which to choose. in 2007, City staff estimated there were approximately 315 sober living beds within the City, which could provide prospective residents of Pacific Shores with an equal opportunity to reside in this type of sober living environment." (HR, PS -RA 00083) (Differing numbers of bedrooms were reported by the applicant on the reasonable accommodation application and plans on file with the City. The staff report listed the numbers from both sources.) (HR, PS -RA 00083, f.2) • Staff (Kill) testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing — And I wanted to remind ... the public this process and this Ordinance has approved to date 233 beds with more in the pipeline. And they're beds all throughout our community ..."(HR, PS -RA 00286) Facility does not require 50 residents to provide a therapeutic benefit that directly ameliorates an effect of the disability, or for financial viability. • Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing - "The purpose of community -based care is to allow residents to re- integrate into the community as their recovery progresses. If facility residents are surrounded primarily by others in recovery, they have reduced opportunities to interact with non - disabled neighbors and re -learn the norms and standards of living as fully functioning members of society." (HR, PS -RA 00084) Staff (Wolcott) testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing — "(In) the case of Lapid- Laurel, LLC, v. Zoning Board of Adjustments of the Township of Scotch Plains, 284 F.3d, page 442, 3'd Circuit Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that it's the plaintiff's burden to show necessity, and said, 'The necessity element requires the demonstration of the direct linkage between the proposed accommodation and the equal opportunity to be provided to the handicapped person.' They specifically, in the Lapid - Laurel case, looked at a 95 -bed elder care facility. And they did find that in this case, the eider --- the elderly disabled people did require an accommodation in order to live in a residential zone ... However, the court specifically said that as to the size of the facility, they had not demonstrated necessity as to the size. They had said that in order to show that, the applicant would have to show that the size would serve a therapeutic purpose and would, therefore ameliorate an effect to the hardship of the handicap. And second that the facility's size was necessary for the facility's financial viability. And the court equated financial viability with giving the disabled equal opportunity to live in a residential neighborhood." (HR, PS -RA 00280 -81) Staff (Wolcott) testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing — (I]s the accommodation necessary to afford a disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling? ... We haven't seen any evidence of what the financial needs are of the facility. We have requested it, and the Applicant specifically objected to the request and declined to present it in the past. Any time the Applicant would like to present us with Pacfflc Shores Properties, LLC— Appeal to City Coumit October 27, 2009 Page 11 financial information, we would will be more than happy to analyze it and advise accordingly." (HR, PS -RA 000202) B. NBMC §20.98.025(B)(3) - Finding No. 3: The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION: This finding cannot be made. Discussion: The Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial for Request No. 5 stated that the Hearing Officer could not make the finding that granting Pacific Shores' request would not impose an undue administrative burden on the City. Due to the 2007 illegal construction at the facility, the ongoing delays in obtaining Pacific Shores' compliance with Building Code requirements, complaints received from neighbors about the intensity of facility use, the applicant's violations of the 2007 moratorium at 492 Orange Avenue and resulting state court action, and the applicant's history of obfuscation regarding the type of use occurring at the facility, substantial financial and administrative burdens had already been incurred by the City. The Hearing Officer determined that if the facility continued at the same intensity of use, the City was likely to have to expend additional resources to control facility impacts. (HR, PS -RA 00372) Evidence that support the Hearing Officer's determination Staff (Brown) testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing — 'Since early 2007, there have been a variety of code enforcement issues brought to the attention of the City regarding the Pacific Shores facility ... (These) include but are not limited to the unpermitted construction at 3309 Clay Street. Following the inspection of the building in Spring of 2007, the City issued a notice of violation for unpermitted construction. In order to comply with City and State building code requirements, the City requires that violators remove unpermitted construction and/or obtain approval of plans and permits for unpermitted work. In response to the notice of violation and stop work order, the property owner submitted plans to the Building Department for plan check ... Over a year later, no attempts to complete the plan check process were made by the property owner. And, therefore, following standard City practice, enforcement efforts resumed and an administrative citation was issued. To date, this matter remains unresolved.' (HR, PS -RA 00181 — 82) Staff (Brown) testimony at March 25, 2009 public hearing — "In February of 2007, Code Enforcement staff requested information about the use of the Pacific Shores facility. The manager of the facility at that time, Mr. Mark Manderson, Sr., informed Code Enforcement staff verbally and in writing that the facility leased rooms to tenants. In May of 2007, an ADP complaint investigator looked into the allegation of unlicensed treatment being provided at the Pacific Shores facility. The officer reported to City staff that she was told by Mr. Manderson that the Pacific Shores facility was not a recovery facility, that they just rented rooms to tenants. At the investigator's request, Mr. Manderson provided copies of sample leases with the tenants ... In July of 2007, the new facility manager, Mark Manderson, Jr., told Code Enforcement staff that the Pacific Shores facility was a sober living home." (HR, PS -RA 00182-83) Pacific Shores Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 12 September 20, 2008 Notice of Administrative Citation issued to Alice Conner for 3309 Clay Street (HR, PS -RA 00042) February 23, 2007 email with attachment from Mark Manderson, Sr. to City Code Enforcement Officer Cass Spence - '. . . It has been brought to our attention that many refer to these rentals as a recovery residence when in fact they are merely rentals. We are not a licensed recovery house, we don't offer any form of recovery, and there are absolutely no 'meetings' happening on our properties. We take pride in providing a safe and luxurious place to live for any person who is looking to reside in a custom house in Newport Beach. We have found over the years that by not allowing any drugs, alcohol, pets or even smoking on our properties ensures that the properties retain their beautiful look while providing an excellent place to live ..." (HR, PS -RA 00099 —100) May 31, 2007 letter from ADP Complaint Investigator Diane Plaza to Mark Manderson Sr., determining that Pacific Shores did not offer services that required state licensure. Attached sample lease provided to ADP by Mr. Manderson states in part, Agreement to stay in my house ... I ... agree to shared living in a sober environment ... I also agree that no drugs or alcohol are allowed on the premises ...I agree to submit to a urine test anytime, and if found positive, 1 further agree to pay $25 for the test and to leave immediately. " (HR, PS -RA 00102) C. NBMC §20.98.025(B)(4) - Finding No. 4: The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program, as "fundamental alteration is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION: This finding cannot be made. Pacific Shores' accommodation Request No. 5 essentially requests a waiver of the use permit requirement. When a reasonable accommodation request is made, the City must grant the request if it is both necessary and reasonable. (HR, PS -RA 00141) A request may be Considered unreasonable if granting the requested accommodation would result in an undue financial or administrative burden on the City, or a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program. "Fundamental alteration" has also been described as "undermining the basic purpose the requirement was put in place to achieve." (HR, PS -RA 00143) The March 25, 2009 staff report and testimony for Pacific Shores' accommodation Request No. 5 considered whether granting the requested accommodations would fundamentally alter the nature of a City program. Staff found that at Pacific Shore's requested population of 50, granting the requested accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration to the City's zoning program. (HR, PS -RA 00090 - 93) Staff analyzed the number of residents and conditions of approval that would allow it to make a finding that granting the requested accommodation would not fundamentally alter the nature of the Citys zoning program, and found , with conditions, a resident client population of 12 allowed staff to make required findings. (HR, PS -RA 00091 - 92) The Hearing Officer stated the applicant had rejected staffs proposed accommodation, and that he did not have the ability to unilaterally impose staffs suggested accommodation on the applicant, but would be willing to hear the matter again if staff and the applicant came to an agreement on an accommodation that the applicant would accept. (HR, PS -RA 00290 — 91) The Hearing Officer said that the staff report analysis and findings spoke well to the issues, and he directed that the Resolutions of Denial contain the findings set forth in the staff report. (HR, PS -RA 00290) Pack Shores Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27. 2009 Page 13 The Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial for Request No. 5 found that 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 that area. The Hearing Officer also found that a primary therapeutic benefit for those in recovery is integration into residential settings in the community. Therefore, the Hearing Officer found that dispersal of the facilities to avoid institutionalization of residential areas was a fundamental part of the use permit process in the R -2 zone. (HR, PS- RA 00373) The Hearing Officer found that granting the requested accommodation to waive the use permit requirement would result in an overconcentration of recovery facilities in the neighborhood, would transform nearly one - quarter of the block into a residential care use, and would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. (HR, PS -RA 00376) The Hearing Officer also found that the applicant was not willing to meet conditions that would have been required under a use permit, and therefore granting the requested accommodation would undermine the purposes the use permit requirement was put in place to achieve. One of the stated purposes of the use permit requirement was to ensure that the character of the surrounding neighborhood was not changed, and that residential care facilities were reasonably dispersed to as not to overconcentrate or institutionalize a particular area. (HR, PS -RA 00375) The Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial noted that the Hearing Officer had the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses he deemed appropriate in a given case, and to apply the American Planning Association standard of one or two such uses per block. At the applicant's proposed population of 50 residents, the Hearing Officer found it unlikely that even a reasonable accommodation with conditions similar to a use permit would ensure that the primarily residential character of the neighborhood was not changed. The Hearing Officer found that 50 people in three adjacent buildings did not constitute reasonable dispersal, and institutionalized the area. (HR, PS -RA 00375 — 76) The Hearing Officer's Resolution of Denial also found that waiving the use permit requirement would create a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program because the site contained insufficient onsite parking to comply with Zoning Code requirements for the use, and that the use would generate trips substantially in excess of average daily trips of the single housekeeping units in surrounding duplexes and single - family homes. (HR, PS -RA 00376 — 77) Evidence in support of determination that granting the accommodation would alter fundamental nature of City's zoning program: Evidence of impacts and change of character of the neighborhood presented at the March 25, 2009 public hearing by Mr. Soylamez, Mr. Obbage and Ms. Fabian (quoted in section addressing Requests No. 1 and 2, above) is incorporated to this section by reference, as it also supports the Hearing Officer's determinations in this area. Staff report for March 25, 2009 reasonable accommodation public hearing — "[Sjtaff ... does not believe that, even with conditions, it could protect and implement the recovery and residential integration of the disabled and avoid an overconcentration of residential care facilities in the neighborhood. With 50 people in three adjacent buildings, the facilities are not reasonably dispersed throughout the community, and are concentrated in a specific area to a degree that arguably institutionalizes that area. On the east and Pacific Shores Properties, LLC - Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 14 west side of this block of Clay Street, there are only nine parcels of land. By converting two of them to residential care facility use, the applicant has turned nearly a quarter of the block into a residential care facility." (HR, PS -RA 00090 — 91) Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing —"Per NBMC Section 20.91A.060(D) and (D)(3), when the Hearing Officer is analyzing whether granting a use permit will result in an overconcentration of residential care uses in the vicinity, he or she shall consider, as appropriate, whether it would be appropriate to apply the APA standard of one or two such uses per block ... Staff recognizes that the applicant is not applying for a use permit, but to justify waiving the use permit requirement, staff must demonstrate that the purpose which the use permit requirement was meant to achieve is not undermined by waiving the requirement. One of the stated purposes of the use permit requirement is to prevent overconcentration and institutionalization of a neighborhood. (HR, PS -RA 00091) Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing — "The Zoning Code requires that a residential care facility provide one on -site parking space for every three residential care beds. With 50 residents, 17 on -site parking spaces are required. Applicant's properties provide six on -site parking spaces. Even if not all residents have cars, with a population of 50 people on two parcels that provide only six on -site parking spaces, it is difficult to argue that the accommodation would not result in insufficient parking." (HR, PS -RA 00091) Staff report for March 25, 2009 public hearing - "Traffic and Generated Trips — The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) establishes and publishes standards for trip generation rates based on the use classification of a site. For a single- family home, the standard trip rate is based on 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. For a duplex, the standard trip rate is based on 6.72 average daily trips per dwelling unit. Trip rates for residential care facilities are based on 2.74 average daily trips per each occupied bed.. . Based on these standards, a 50 -bed residential care facility would generate approximately 137 average daily trips. A duplex would generate approximately 13.44 average daily trips. A single- family home would generate approximately 9.57 average daily trips per dwelling. If occupied by single housekeeping units, the ITE formula predicts a total of 23.01 average daily trips for one single - family dwelling and the two units of the duplex. The evidence shows this facility will generate trips substantially in excess of average daily trips of the single housekeeping units in surrounding duplexes and single - family homes." (H R, PS-RA 00095) • Staff testimony (Wolcott) at March 25, 2009 public hearing — (Wje looked at the populations of this block. And we looked at the 2000 Census (taken before Pacific Shores' established facility use) to try to compare density ... with all three units in operation they would return approximately one - quarter of this block area to residential facility use. "(HR, PS -RA 00217) Staff testimony (Brown) at March 25, 2009 public hearing — "On the side of the street with residential buildings facing along Clay Street ... there were 20 lots or parcels. And the — 20 blocks or parcels that are residentially zoned, there are 37 lots or parcels on the other side, back -to -back properties, that were commercially zoned . . . (Tjhe 2000 Census recognized that there were 70 persons in that particular block. If I counted just the number of residential parcels divided by 70 persons, that would be 3.5 individuals per lot or parcel. Across the street from Clay ... that block is a smaller block defined by Pacific Shores Properties, LLC — Appeal to City Council October 27, 2009 Page 15 the census, a total of 12 lots or parcels. There were 43 persons in that block. So based on that count, that would be 3.58 persons per (parcel) in the 2000 Census.'" (HR, PS -RA 00217 — 00218), (Wolcott) — "So these were the numbers that we were comparing the density for a proposal that housed 50 people in that portion" (HR, PS -RA 00218) Documents supporting neighborhood density analysis by Ms. Brown, submitted to Hearing Officer at hearing. (HR, PS -RA 00438 — 00442) Examples of evidence that a primary therapeutic benefit for those in recovery is integration into residential settings in the community. Staff (Wolcott) testimony at March 25, 2009 reasonable accommodation public hearing — (OJne of the purposes of community -based care is to allow the recovering individual to learn to reintegrate into a neighborhood, to have interaction with individuals who are not in the facility, so that they can start relearning the standards and norms of a regular neighborhood and learn how to enter the mainstream of society again. The purpose is to learn how to live in a neighborhood, not to learn how to live in an institution." (H R, PS- RA 00209) ATTACHMENT 5 Email dated October 16, 2009 Staff Report: Pacific Shores - Appeal of Hearing Officer's Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Hunt, David From: Sent: To: Subject: CyAutold: CycomPath: CyMatterld: CyMultiRecMemos: CyStaffld: Mr. Polin and Mr. Brancart: Hunt, David Friday, October 16, 2009 9:37 AM Steve Polin Esq. (spolin2 @earthlink.net); Christopher Brancart Esq. (cbrancart @brancart.com ) Hearing October 27 and Agenda Materialos (File: A09 -00397 Newport Coast Recovery - Use Permit Appeal) 2052123 C:lcycomsgl\ 2021736 N DRH We confirm the appeal of the denial of Newport Coast Recovery's application for a use permit and reasonable accommodation is scheduled for hearing by the City Council at its regular meeting on October 27, 2009. We will set the matter for a time certain of 7:15 p.m. so that there is certainty as to when the matter will proceed. We are in the process of preparing our staff report in the appeal. It must be to the City Clerk Wednesday morning, October 21, 2009, to go out with the regular agenda packet that afternoon. if you wish to have an written presentation routed to the City Council with the agenda packet, please provide it to us by close of business on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, and we will be sure it is routed with our staff materials. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Vamd R, :;(Wtr City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3131 city. newpo rt- beach.ca.us CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and /or attorney -work product for the sole use of the addressee. Any review by, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding to others without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney - client privilege as to this communication. If you have received this communication in error, immediately notify the sender. Thank you. �OliNIM AGENDA . -r-�I D STEVEN G. POUN, ESQ. t034 Unwu n Si. N.w Attorney At lain V,'ASHIN6ros, D.C. 20015 • TEL (202) 331 -5848 FAx (202) 537.2986 SMUIN2@EAKMUNK.XET October 23, 2009 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MEAN David Hunt, Esquire City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Appeal of Pacific Shores Properties. LLC A09 -00583 Dear Mr. Hunt, On October 21, 2009, counsel for Pacific Shores Properties, LLC (hereinafter "Pacific Shores") was served with the City of Newport Beach's staff report to the City Council in • reference to the appeal mentioned above. The staff report and its attachments were received in my office at 7:53 p.m. E.D.T. Please be advised that Pacific Shores is hereby amending its request for a reasonable accommodation as follows: • Pacific Shores is requesting a reasonable accommodation that will allow it to maintain a maximum occupancy of 12 residents at each of the Orange Avenue addresses, plus a live in manager should it be decided that one is needed. • Pacific Shores has made application to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to license 3309 Clay to a residential substance abuse treatment facility alcoholic providing six or fewer beds in accordance with California Health & Safety Code Sections 11834.01- 11834.50 • Pacific Shores is requesting as a reasonable accommodation a waiver of any enforcement of the City's "Integral Facility" as that term is defined in NBMC §20.03.030 in accordance with the analysis of that term in the Sober Living by the Sea lawsuit. • Pacific Shores is requesting as a reasonable accommodation that the City will treat both of the Orange Avenue addresses and 3309 Clay as a "single housekeeping unit" by waiving the requirement that all of the residents be on a single lease as required in the definition of that term in NBMC §20.03.030 • E David Hunt, Esquire Page 2 • October 23, 2009 • Pacific Shores is requesting that the City apply all building, zoning, fire and I ife safety codes to the Orange Avenue addresses and 3309 Clay (other than those codes that are applicable to state licensed six and under residential treatment facilities) in the same manner those code provisions are applied to either "single housekeeping units" or "single family uses." Pacific Shores offers its residents fellowship and the existence of structured setting where zero tolerance of alcohol and drug use is enforced. Moreover, residence at the Orange Avenue addresses offers the residents the sense of community with similarly situated persons in recovery and the opportunity to reside in a stable alcohol and drug free environment. In addition, Pacific Shores offers its residents a self -paced recovery option and which gives each resident sufficient time for personal psychological growth while avoiding the use ofalcohol and other mood altering substances. Pacific Shores, like an Oxford House, differ from other recovery programs because it allows each resident to gain stability in their lives, and sufficient time for change and personal growth at their pace as long as they follow the rules of residency. Residency in at Pacific Shores gives the recovering alcoholic and drug addict an opportunity to become a responsible, productive member of society, which is a goal the City should embrace. Those not stricken with the disease of alcoholism or drug addiction often do not understand the need to be around others who are striving for the same thing, learning to live on life's terms without the need to use alcohol or drugs. "Little things" most members of society take for granted are often new or relearned behavior for persons • in recovery. These "little things" often include learning that getting up every morning and going to work on time every day will result in getting a pay check at the end of the week. This new or relearned behavior is embraced as a cornerstone of the residents' recovery. Without a housing program such as that offered by Pacific Shores at the Orange Avenue addresses, it is highly doubtful that its residents could live independently without relapsing into active alcoholism and drug addiction. The requested accommodations are necessary so that this particular group of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts may have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling of their choice. As the court in Smith & Lee Associates, Inc. v. City ofTaylor pointed out, equal opportunity under the FHA in the zoning context is defined "as giving handicapped individuals the right to choose to live in single - family neighborhoods" 102 F.3d 781, 794-95 (6th Cir. 1996). Here, there is substantial evidence that the requested accommodation is necessary to achieve an opportunity for the disabled residents of the Orange Avenue properties to live in a residential area of the City of Newport Beach. Absent the sober house setting, the individual residents of Pacific Shores would not be able to live in a supportive environment in a residential area, let alone a single - family residential area. See also (konomowoc Residential Prog., 300 F.3d at 784 ( "When a zoning authority refuses to reasonably accommodate these small group living facilities, it denies disabled persons an equal opportunity to live in the community of their choice. "); Sharpvisions, Inc. v. Borough of Plum, 475 F. Stipp. 2d 514, 526 (WD. Pa. 2007) (holding that request for accommodation to definition of "family" was necessary for a resident "to enjoy the housing of his or her choice"). • • C, • David Hunt, Esquire Page 3 October 23, 2009 Pacific Shores' requested accommodations, to allow 12 residents plus a live in manager, at the Orange Avenue addresses, are necessary to afford the disabled residents of the Orange Avenue addresses the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. It has been found that individuals who decide to live in sober housing programs, such as that offered by Pacific Shores, are allowed to engage in the process of recovery from alcoholism and substance abuse, at their own pace that the effects of the disease of alcoholism and drug addiction are alleviated. By living with other persons who are in recovery, the residents do not have to face an alcoholic's or addict's deadliest enemy: loneliness.' The requested accommodations are necessary since it will enhance the residents' recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction. See Wisconsin Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. CityofMilwaukee, 465 F.3d 737, 749 (7th Cir. 2006) (en bane) ( "[TJhe statute requires only accommodations necessary to ameliorate the effect of the plaintiffs disability so that she may compete equally with the non -disabled in the housing market. "); Lapid- laurel, L.L.C' v. Zoning Rd. ofAdjustmeni ofTwp. of .Scotch Plains, 284 F.3d 442,460 (3d Cir. 2002) ( "Il]f the proposed accommodation provides no direct amelioration of a disability's effect, it cannot be said to be necessary. ") (quotation marks omitted); Forest City Daly Ifous., Inc. v. Town of N. Hempstead, 175 F.3d 144, 152 (2d Cir. 1999) (explaining that the relevant inquiry is whether "the non - complying features of the proposed residence are' necessary' in light of the disabilities of proposed residents "); Oconomowoc Residential Programs. Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir. Wis. 2002)(An accommodation is "necessary" if it will "affirmatively enhance a disabled plaintiffs quality of life by ameliorating • the effects of the disabil ity.") Seealso, Developmental Servs. ofNeb .v.C'ity ofLincoln,504F.Supp. 2d 714, 723 (D. Neb. 2007) and New Hope Fellowship, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39174 (D. Neb. 2005). Without the required accommodation residents of Pacific Shores will be denied the equal opportunity to live in a residential neighborhood." Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F.3d at 784 (citations omitted). In addition, a minimum of twelve residents per address is necessary so that Pacific Shores may be economically viable. Pacific Shores is required to make mortgage payments, pay property taxes, insurance, utilities as well as expenses related to maintenance and upkeep on the properties. The cost of the Pacific Shores program also includes providing "scholarships" for some residents who need a safe and sober residence but can not afford the rent, absorbing the costs of bad checks or failures to pay rent. Any household is entitled to bring in sufficient income to cover its living 'Congress has also endorsed group homes as a tool in the fight against addiction. Specifically, the federal government gives the states block grants to fight substance abuse. The statute regulating states' use of this federal money expressly allows them to use their grants to "establish and maintain the ongoing operation of a revolving fund ... to support group homes for recovering substance abusers[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 300x- 25(a). "The purpose of the fund is to make loans for the costs of establishing programs for the provision of housing in which individuals recovering from alcohol or drug abuse may reside in groups of not less than 6 individuals," and these group homes must operate under rules similar to the rules each resident agrees as a condition of living at Pacific Shores Id. § 300x -25(ax 1). Schwan v. City of Treasure Island, 544 • F.3d 1201, 1227 n. 16 (1 Ith Cir. Fla. 2008) 0 0 David Hunt. Esquire Page 4 • October 23, 2009 expenses. In addition, Pacific Shores as a provider of housing and services to recovering substance abusers is also entitled to generate enough income to pay its business expenses. Even if there is a "commercial nature" to the operation of the Orange Avenue properties by Pacific Shores, this is not a basis for denying its request for a reasonable accommodation. (The nature of group home living for the handicapped often requires alternative living arrangements to effectuate the purpose of the FHA. The disabled are not able to live safely and independently without organized, and sometimes commercial group homes. Groome Resources Ltd v. Parish of Jefferson', 234 F.3d 192, 206 (5th Cir. 2000). The fact that the Glendora home is a business should not be the basis for denying an accommodation when reasonable and necessary. Avalon Residential Care Homes, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 130 F. Supp. 2d 833, 841 (N.D. Tex. 2000))'. Pacific Shores' requests for a reasonable accommodation is reasonable and necessary based on its need to pay normal household expenses as well as its business and operational expenses. For the reasons stated above, it is requested that the City Council find that there does not exist substantial evidence to support the findings of the hearing officer. It is further requested that the City Council approve Pacific Shores's modified requests for a reasonable accommodation. Sin c yours, v no o to • cc: Christopher Brancart Pacific Shores Properties, LLC Patrick Bobko Dana Mulhauser Paul E. Smith 'The Groome Court also held: "In addition to the commercial aspect of purchasing the home, it must be noted that the granting of reasonable accommodations to Alzheimees group homes and other homes for disabled individuals also affects the commercial viability of care organizations like Groome Resources. The district court found that the zoning ordinance, with its limitation on four unrelated persons, "will make it economically unfeasible for plaintiff to operate the proposed home." The court recognized that the economic viability of this care facility was impeded by the refusal to grant an accommodation" Groome Resources. Lid. v. Parish of Jefferson, 234 F.3d 192, 206 (5th Cir. Is. 2000) 'Other circuits have also recognized that commercial group homes may be the only way for disabled individuals to live in a residential community. See Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096, 1105 (3d Cir. 1996); Smith Br Lee Assocs., Inc. v City of Taylor, Mich., 13 F.3d 920, 931 (6th Cir. 1993). • City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting of October z7, 2-009 Appeal of Hearing Officer's Dertialof Reasonable Accommodation Pacific Shores Properties, LLC 492 and 4921/2 Orange Avenue, and 3309 Clay Street Ir FMSll su pror kl. �400, yl 1 -1�14 1. That residents of its facility at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 492112 Orange Avenue be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the City no longer classify or treat the properties at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 4921/2 Orange Avenue as "Residential Care Facilities," as defined by NBMC Section 20.05.010. That the City classify the use of the dwellings at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 492 1/2 Orange Avenue as a legal nonconforming use. 4. That all code provisions applicable to the use of 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 492 112 Orange Avenue (including Zoning Code, Building Code, fire safety and any other applicable code) be applied to those properties in the same manner that those codes are applied and enforced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2. 5. That the City waive the requirement of NBMC Section 20.giA.020 that unlicensed residential care facilities may be located only in a residential district zoned MFR with a use permit. i. That the requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. z. That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 3. That the requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. 4. That the requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program, as "fundamental alteration" is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. 5. That the requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. That residents of its facility at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 492 1/2 Orange Avenue be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Hearing Officer Determination: Denied with Prejudice 2. That the City no longer classify or treat the properties at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 492 1/2 Orange Avenue as "Residential Care Facilities," as defined by NBMC Section 20.05.010. Hearing Officer Determination: Denied with Prejudice That the City classify the use of the dwellings at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 492 1/2 Orange Avenue as a legal nonconforming use. Hearing Officer Determination: Approved 4. That all code provisions applicable to the use of 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue and 492 1/2 Orange Avenue (including Zoning Code, Building Code, fire safety and any other applicable code) be applied to those properties in the same manner that those codes are applied and enforced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2. Hearing Officer Determination: Denied with Prejudice 5. That the City waive the requirement of NBMC Section 2o.91A.020 that unlicensed residential care facilities may be located only in a residential district zoned MFR with a use permit. Hearing Officer Determination: Denied without Prejudice i. That the City provide an accommodation that would allow Pacific Shores to continue the present use with 12 residents (plus one resident manager, if needed) at each of their units on Orange Avenue (492 and 492 1 /2 Orange Avenue.) Pacific Shores states that it intends to obtain a license for six or fewer residents from the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) for the use at 3309 Clay Street; 2. That the City waiver of any enforcement of the City's restrictions on Integral Facilities, as defined in Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.03.030, 3. That the City treat Pacific Shores uses at 3309 Clay and 492 and 492'12 Orange as a "single housekeeping unit," as that term is defined by NBMC Section 20.03.030, by waiving that definition's requirement that members of a single housekeeping unit occupy the dwelling under a single lease; 4. That the City apply all building, zoning, fire and life safety codes to the Orange Avenue addresses and 3309 Clay Street (other than those codes applicable to licensed facilities for six or fewer residents) in the same manner as such codes would be applied to either a single housekeeping unit or single - family use. Jio 10-a-1-01 PR -ES�1 I�ToN Pacific Shores 492 orange street, new port Ixach. ca - Google Maps http:llmaps.google.commaps *?"&-solace s q&hl -en• 6vocode 4 -49... I Address J urp7 `0oglp Get Google Maps on Newport eac, a : w 53 Llgr V-f 41 Vi+w Den • W t9N _ v F Costa Mesa ? W IaMST ss W 17th St 4.itns O' E, `G P.01 rcPf v� 9 i• q ytYA CR Y' t 1 e1 6M St y<,m•*q coot «� , {� Q WnacW Wa7a Vol Shominq C«, e ,aa� � H.�a{•lal Rd yyF SS Weer Co;•ey et�rY O b Newport q Beach 4 i rtls .0 rJtu: r,r uaro Bay. W B+eoa 9y L O7CJG G: ogle Map daa 02009 �.Jayi 107/2009 11:23 AM I ,� jy�a21 ke i 3 Marck - .2005- C1aL� St. 3- fx_U� CLAY STRE-ET - 3315 Clod St. _New Cons+ruG4-;c vn - Was � %'v%e4-o ✓i mLi+u41 *67S000 (psi (C (osed ) 13 ,--Tw d� Il IT11lllll z I;`Illli�;: , gillll�llillllj Hiiiiiiiiiiiii To all roommates: The following is a list of things that need a little attention. 1) Chores: For people who will not do their chore, you may be asked to leave for the night. _ Initials. 2) Cigarette Butts: Any person tossing cigarette butts anywhere on the property other then an ashtray will be asked to pick up butts around the property. If it happens again you will be asked to leave. __ Initials. 3) Stealing: This is a zero tolerance issue. Any person caught will be asked to leave. Initials. 4) Personal Belongings: Belongings will be held in storage for 30 days maximum and then given to good will. Any balance due must be paid before entering storage to retrieve items. Initials. 5) For the first thirty days, I agree I must attend a minimum of 5 AA or NA meetings per week with one of my roommates. __ Initials. 6) 1 agree that any and all medication that I bring onto the property must be inventoried by a house coordinator and will be checked to ensure I am not over or under medicating. I also understand that if I ask for or share any medication I will be asked to leave immediately. _ Initials. 7) 1 agree to come to our weekly roommate meeting. Initials. H) 1 understand that parking on Clay Street will result in a S25 fine per incident, No exceptions, not even 60 seconds, please don't park on clay. _ Initials. 9) To avoid any confusion two weeks notice is required to be given in writing to receive return of your deposit. Abandoning your room and left for others to pack up and clean will result in a S75 deduction from your deposit. Initials. These things are meant to help you in your recovery. Thank You! Name: _ Building: Room: Date In: Amount paid: _ Deposit: _ Return deposit to: __ ... Room Clean]inessidamage: Beddi ng, Furni sh ings: 2 Good Neighbor Policy: Residents with cars are strongly discouraged from parking on Clay Street or above clay and orange. They instead are asked to park in front of the house and down off of old Newport blvd. which is all commercial. Residents daily enhance the neighborhood specifically by sweeping and picking up neighborhood trash, starting at the comer of old Newport and Orange and finish around the comer off of Orange and Bolsa. Picking up any trash or debris in neighborhood. We strongly discourage residents from loitering or smoking in front of the house. There is a private patio in the backyard where they can smoke and converse. We strongly discourage residents from using any profanity. They are encouraged to practice all of their daily principles on and off location. Residents are discouraged from keeping late hours and from having any disruptive behavior. We keep up with the Sober Living Coalition standards and eagerly await inspection and becoming recognized as part of the coalition which is a self governing entity for quality sober living homes. We provide a sate place for individuals to conic and live together in a supportive environment that is conducive to their individual program. Roommates encourage each other to attend daily meetings, keep the house clean and orderly, to work full time, to prove their sobriety daily, and to be held accountable for their actions. 'the environment that is created at their house and their interactions with each other allows them to feel a connection to, and a responsibility fix their own recovery. 7 Need E. Federal Substate Estimates from the 2004 -2006 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health DISCLAIMER SAM ISA provides links to other Intemet sites as a service to its users, and is not responsible for the availability or content of these external sites. SAWSA, its employees, and contractors do not endorse, warrant, or guarantee the products, services, or information described or offered at these other Intemet sites. Any reference to a commercial product, process, or service is not an endorsement or recommendation by the SAMHSA, its employees, or contractors. For documents available from this server, the C.S. Gocemrncnt does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy. completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SLRVICICS Substance Abuse and Mental Ilealth Services Administration Office of Applied Studies 10 CALIFORNIA - Substate Istirnates from the 2004 -2006 NSDCH, SAMH... leap: oas.samhsa.gov subsute2k8 statefiles.1ca.htm Table 5.9 -Needing Bat Not Receiving Treatment for Alcohol Use in Past Year and /Needing Bat Not Receiving Treatment for Illicit Drag Use in Past Year in California among Persons Aged 12 or Older, by Substate Region: Percenta_oes, Annual Averages Based on 2004, 2005, and 2006 NSDI ?Hs Needing But Not Receiving Treatment Needing But Not Receiving Treatment i. for Alcohol Use in Past Yeat for Illicit Drug Use in Past Year 95% Prediction 95% Prediction State /Substate Region Estimate i Interval Estimate Interval California 7.83 I (7.19 - 8.53) 2.90 (2.59 - 3.25) Region Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 (Santa Clara) Rcgion 7 - Region 8 Region 9 Region ]0 Region 1 I (l.w 8.87 (6.98 - 11.20) 9.57 (7.90 154) 7.16 (5.63 - 9.07) 8.29 8.12 (6.62 - 10.34) (6.60 -9.96) 7.00 (5.55 - 8.81) 8.33 (6.51 - 10.59) 1.88 l 8.59 8.43 (6.24 - 990) (6.89 - 10.65) (6.74 - 10.50) 3.54 3.27 3.02 2.76 3.40 2.51 3.16 3.05 3.53 3.38 (2.51 - 4.96) (2.48 - 4.28) (2.14 - 4.26) (1.96 - 3.88) (2.45 - 4.70) (1.85 - 3.40) (2.25 - 4.42) (2.19 - 4.22) (2.56 - 4.85) (2.49 - 4.59) Angeles) _ 6.72 I (5.74 - 7.85) 2.68 (2.17 - 3.31) Region 12 6.94 I (5.57 - 8.60) i 2.57 F (1.83 - 3.60) Region 13 (Riverside) 8.25 I (6.61 - 10.25) �.00 (2.22 - 4.05) r Region 14 (Orange) l 8.06 (6.57 - 9.85) I 2.46 (1.82 - 3.30) Regon 15 8.99 (7.45 710.80') - -2.91 (2.24 - 3.77) NO IT: For Substate Region definitions, sec Section D of the sport on .Substate Esionotesfrant the 2004- 2006,Vational.Sunvgx on /bug Use and Health. NOTE: Estimates are based on a survey - weighted hierarchical Rayes estimation approach, and the 95 percent pted ictiun (credible) vttm•ak are ;generated by Markov Chain \ionte Carlo techniques. 'Needs= But Not Receiving'freamnent refers to respondents cla+sificd as nailing treatment for aleohoL but not receiving treatment for an alcohol problem at a specialty facility (ic., drug and alcohol rehabiNation facannes Impatient or outpati7a), hospitals f spatimt onlyl, and mental health centers). '-Needing But Not Recen ing'Freamont refers to respondents classified as needing treatment for nonce drugs, but not receiving treamment for an illicit drug problem at a specialty facility (i c., drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities Impatient or outpatimQ, hospitals [inpatient only;, and mental health centers). Illicit Drugs include mariluanalwhish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, hUlants, or prescription -type ps-vchotherapeutics useel nonnadically. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies. National Survey on flue Use and Health 2004, 2005, and 2006. 11 I 1 of 33 10.120:2009 10:27 AM State 12 02/13/2009 06:13 9163272643 March 25,2M +PD PUBLIC LAwCENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTWS LOW INCOME RESIDENTS Gregg Ramirez, Senior Flamer Planning Depiatmem City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 42663 Re: Comments for Housing Element Revision IP == PAGE 11 DEVELOP MEN-, FICD . I MAR 2 8 Zutia I am submitting this letter on behalf of Child Care Comedians, a collaborative of community Stoups that advocates for the avajlability of affordable, 'accessible, and quality child true to all Orange County families. The Public Law Center is honored to be a member of I his collaborative, along with other nonprofit organizations and government agencies, such as Ora age County United Way; the Children's Home Society of California; Orange County Child Care & D.-valopmeot Plaming Council;- County of Orange, Social Services Agency; Children & Families Commission of Orange County and the Kennedy Commission. Iris an exciting tithe for planning in Newport Beach. Through the Regional Ho using Needs Assessment(RHNA) process, the Southern California Association of (3overnments (SCAO) allocated a total housing need for Newport Beach of 1,784 units, over forty permnt (40%) of which ate low and very-low income, households. t The City has the duty to ade- palely plan for this housing need In your upcoming housing element revision for the 2006.2014 planning period. While pig for the housing need, we encourage you to properiy plan for the child care needs of families as well. Phoritlzing ddW cane in the bowing element can be an important first-step to promoting child care fatalities development within the City. We urge you to Arnk with all housing developers to incorporate, where feasible, child care that serves families of all incomes and children of all agea. Unfortunately. child care is often a missing piece in community development plans and policies. Many planners largely consider child care to be a social issue rather than a lani use and planning issue. However, child care significantly contributes to job creation and econonric development; and has stroog ties to housing growth and transportation 6sues. Investing in child care development can increase labor force participation, especially among low and middle income families, leading to direct increases in output, personal income, business form uioa, and property and sales tax revenues. For these reasons, the American Planning Association (APA) encourages "the inclusion of child care policies as part of local planning policies." HCD000023 4401 CSvk Center Dow Wait • Santa Ana, CA 92ol•49W • (714) 541-1016 • Fax M4) Kr -stn 13 02/13/2009 06:13 9163272643 FPD PACE 28 Newport Beau Hoessing Coalition 1730 Gsk V Drive, Newport Beach, CA 9UN October 8, 2009 Cathy Creswell DEV£ OUCy Deputy Director of Housing Policy Department of Housing and Community Development G C i 1,4 2008 1800 Third Street, Suite 43o P. O. Box 952053 Saaantento,CA 94252 -2053 Dear Ms. CseswEM- The Newport Beach Housing Coalition comprises Newport Beach residents and supporting orgeaW60US who advocate for the development of housing of fordable to low and very low income residents. Many of m participated in our City's drab housing element workshops, sod both the Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting that approved the Homing Bement. We also attended a General Pbu&CP huPlCmentaian Commitlee meeting that addressed the aowng code re-wr 3e. We have written ktkn to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department stall~ PWaning Commission and City Cotmal concerning out City's housing element We appreciate this opportunity to Comment of the City of Newport Besets Hooting Element to our state's Department of Housing and Comm dty Develops ent. Our comments focus on the following areas: 1. Past performance, Hart - compliance findings by your depottaw %t and required cmry-0ver ofpsior pbnnwg period RHNA shortfall. 2. Lack of identified sites appropriately coned to meet housing n xdt for low and very low income households. 3. Lack of strong policies or implementation plans to &dHtste development of homes for low inconoe residents. 4. Lack of oompUa= with SB2 regttrremems. L Past performance on 19W20S Hoaslag Element and short£all any-ever Our City's 1 998 -200S and revised 2006 Housing Elements was found to be out of comphaane with State Housing Element law, Melting ikon on and analysis of sites available for development of homes for lower income households. Thom, housing elements also f %W to provide strengthened, specific policies and programs that would remove baaIars and facilitate the development of housing for lower inemae f mailles. During the 1999 -2005 Planning Period, our City added 3,157 new homes that vest rn iorlty only aSbn We to upper income households. Only one commmuty — tba 119 HCD000040 14 02113/2009 06:13 10/17/2008 13:69 9163272643 ,9492630607 October 16, 2008 Mr. Gregg Ramlrez Planning bepartment City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92858 -8915 RE: Draft Housing Bement Thank you for the oppodunity b n Draft Housing Element We have provide public comments. The Kennedy Commission Is a bro on buildli g a supportive &rMmnrrn ramifies in Orange County earning rPD JMC & H%H PAGE 15 PAGE 01/10 17:(j1 Caron M,MA Pk1' huliG:CA 918 118 a l 4 m and comment on the City of Newport Beach wed the draft and are submitting it is letter to rsed ooaHtion of ooftwnunity adwotates, focused r the creation of housing opportun des for than $20,000 annually. Our ownmenis focus on the fbliowingiarem State Housing Element law requires that aommuntties allow for public participation and comment oppartunities In the isi ndewluatlon of fine juAedicdon's Housing Element. Caffiornia Gov�emment CoSection 65683 (cx8)(b), requites tl tat jurisdiodons 4 —shall make a diligenort to achieve pertldpation of all emnomtc segments in the communhVy in the ng Element proems. This raquinafnent present an opportunity For the City td engage constituents and stakeholders Ina dialogue - defining problems rod cr ng soluf4a l& The induslon of aownunity stakeholders in the Housing Element public paiticipstlon process helps ensure appropriate housing stratagles are re elftclanty and affectively evaluated. The Kennedy Commission asst a to the City an June 27, 2DD7, requesting to be included in public dialogue and older mastirgo to evaluate the City's housing policies and make recommendeteta ivns The Cty hold two wo fcshoops on Mardh 31, 2008. In the afEemoon developers were asked tv provide Input on exM"N p rams and potential new Incentves. in f?ro second meeting, housing provides findudt the Kennedy commission) and cmimunity members tore invited b comment o the ex needs and issues and raw housitg programs. Participarrte h the p speffm0y, Identified affordabGlty and balanced housing developmsrrt ee dwaengee 1 meeting the housing rweds in Newport Beads. tVerkY+C ferelsem! dieR9e r m Cs mod<}nioe W nowep rarOrert(p Cargs wnvnry nM n acne lMteghdtla HCD000027 15 02/13/2009 06 :13 9163272693 HPD PAGE 02 Fr-=M. 2mfamw DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POUCY DEVELOPMENT 1800 tetra su", sun* 430 P. O. Bone 95700 SAaanmb. CA 9426Z.M (918) 313.!177 / PAX (913) W-2543 wMwAcd.*s.gw 0 October 24, 2008 Mr, David Lego, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Mr. Lepo: RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Draft Housing Element Thank you for-submitting Newport Beach's draft housing element received for review on August 25, 2008. The Department is required to review draft housing i0ements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). A telephone conversation on October 20, 2008 with Mr. Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, and Ms. Unda Tatum and Ms. Jessie Barkley from PBS&J, the Citys consuttents, facilitated the review. In addition, the Department considered comments from Mr. Cesar Covarrubias, from the Kennedy Commission, Ms. Kathy Lewis, from the 'Newport Beach Housing Coalition, and Mr. Ezequiel Gutierrez, from tF a Public Law Center, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c). The draft element addresses many of the statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply wittt State housing element taw (Artide_1.0.8 of the Government Code). In particular, the element should include analyses of the adequacy of identified sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower- income households and revise programs to demonstrate the City's commitment to assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely low- income households. The enckmd Appendix describes these and other revisions needed to comply with State hou:fing element law. Furthermore, In September of 2007, the Department reviewed draft changes to the adopted housing element from the previous housing element planning period and determined revisions relating to the adequacy of sites would be necessary to comply with State housing ele nem law. As the current draft contains much c f the same site related Information, many of the findings described in the September 10, 2007 review are still necessary to comply with State housing element law (Article 10.8 of the Govemment Code). HCD000014 16 City 17 T 1 ,j f �O 1 r r T r, J 0 City. of Newport Reach .2005 -2009 Consolidated Plan "r PLDM DI 'lam' I irA r i D rt r-I Table 6-12 Special MoWs Populadow MM Table IB) aq,,fmmrpwtBe" Pg. F7-27 2004M GmwmUdmWdPIdM zm 58LW NB 20709 f-� I. z N P4 W tW ab�itlm b pebNe SdYtla. �iog flam sabaeao above. - Nye xetr se,, V 6 PO& Acuill" tb; city b even ueeablhy bmidmtawghdh oe, 2mpo�bmbadet � Ba1bw VllMgeSNewaGc sae�mprlde aappott seadoq to seeion m ee�ble 00 tozoin so Thfa .dg be mid h PmMhig dmdhy CDBa) to pt"lc mob* agendas bat »de s mim to IMI ate bllowjcg pow wWbefeaieduptatoi�SaamtepC ji< ' p�g�berAtn .Lo- MoMIeMgF�f{'�te�tnn Tia Qty ")a ponidi auppoat aenias to pat= saffad" fmm aobwooe .01 Tia win be swouph tM by r (fig emare6 i ce) ro pobro ee:.le. ■VD" gm V1°"I meeebom TbA hnowhtg wIg be IMI r put of dh a4aaegy, gebmim Abwa Po -eeppott euvL.w tm imam arl0t ANlAID9. ;'f WM bo aw=VWbed by pmvi tog thmmI ice) i low aatvies ageoafee mat peovida savloae b peteoee WM HIV /AIDS, The M"&g pcogcmtAlbe patofmbettate�r. — j • � � +H��uxelHome'heaeiliooelHoovug I a6'�1Virpe+lBeccrl I ...�10 ]IDOS- ]BOpcbw,oBdmJ) (- Pdme &se SRLQf 20 U r. City of Newport Beach, California Five Year Consolidated Plan FY 2000 - 2004 One -Fear Action Plan FY 2000 - 2001 4. Submitted to: U-S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Los Angeles Area Office 611 west Sixth Street Los Angeles, California 90017 -3127 QTY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2000 -2004 Consolidated Plan Document NB 25698 Beak is a 000m='W 2dt4 sivgfi rt public ttaomnac in the fo= of the vw nod kwcr boy. PONE6 public bead std publk Vim vAud SW 8ftmd mmy 7u cwy ha a vad a hkb pi0ft to povift mmmuiw iawovemmats to haum woomb&W hr'boacgM4 posom to pabUc buUdbW pim and cap D=L Shoe *A hXPOVaU=b Ad CaV-W%e, it b of dimbW pmm vrA nobMW Hmh*kms vdU bom& O*Wm 7u MY mb-& is pvvklo S30ADO ja•cD80 *M& 1w mwval afachb"bod htsdws dobs 69 2000-2001 pmpam ym to provide bftdWVpod awndbMW to pmbVc bWMb*% paim. pfin sod mWoome In conOUIMO Wlth the Amadam with DWbMdw Ad (ADAM The City OM oomidw ftm &nft of 66 cabsocr anon am=W besiadmiagdonWIMyear pado& Owcd= T6 PrOVI& asstrtwes to the oldedy. Aefivitr. In offt to addnw the m&hooft ql=W mods, to chy VA 06ndaw a0oariaS tm& to Own persons Ift &Mbahl" to mobat god MCOUNG to pealb bogfto md resowom nA cum WWI bdaft bdiding oDdigcsdm ekgftn ad omb am Ad .W. Wltfle tba > eoyarmosivn b the ideal simaGon m ptwide &sr Ere geode of the Wda*. this Is ma dwW po=Vc. Thoefte, to My OW owthm to StrA Amw say th" p*W& um6b a W GWWy and needy hambowd Obomcim T fl-bak= an lyodhL pmb" ftft 2%3i=ft no uwaU pmems to do IAMDA fwjrum� cc" at ft'K'M cc" 2: denim emir, 0"'L L21MAlmhol ot Drug AAdkwm pasm Whh Ao" sad 7a&w drag S"dLmw Of= need maxledw comwoodfth* a= V= =a M)w w zft� �� ----V?* hW rdiabBbadca to arft to d - ubdibftd lHifoOle. Azdv�r 7U Cify ow m:*= to Bad woW arvim qpmciLx that pwMe mmvsVAW, dMW fad XW=JWViCOSbD law Sad t todoas0e inromete pant Vft Oafnr Run sh" and dm Nuke= 4 4 4 .q( NB 25717 ea 4 4 4 .q( NB 25717 ObrRSCia 71st WARAWO Of &MIMg ae SWW qWVjae agcoom the oao provide the ale {he mgj obstaclas in Perepna wig D =707's'""e"Pe" At lag repoz% there ware 150 ctsurdslive AIDS caves rq=W in Nmq=t Be** Of 60 cam reported in the vvM, 42% were Newport Onch raddmtL Persons who are IffV poWtbic, are a serious Q* dsr popuhstion In the Ornop CMItY mdmpoHtim am As Mated in the City a Homing Elamast WWWnenbuion Acdom the City shall dkode a portion of its CDBG rands to Provide services 9)r the homaleaL O*MM TO PvTx% WCW sarvice funds which may assist the nods of pawn and families with AIDS w4m the cousumrt , . Activity': The Ch' MMY Continn 10 bald social savioe sperbales that provide 9WW and 3qM StMocs 10 V==* low, low and madame income pamm who may Aadvirr. The City mW confinue to thud wcud m-noe asencks that provide comacHm thcrW and a I I, sarvion to low and moderate income person; who mift from AMS. PWft Housiur. 7bere are no pubfic b=Wog unib looted in the City of Newport Bewk Sm TaMe ID —SpeeW lfaddNat--JiomLse F.T �Jko). 4 0 L 1;! A; 1; • I Z, f., As Adod is the CWs Housing MWAt gook and pAcia, # fs the Want of the MY ta. Pmmv Audlocz=whoud afforddillry through r=W boadeg ft *a vary low and lower foccIll Pftomls� bouslabow 104 wbd provide: lov� wid &ad asoistence to the bm=g Industry. within the of "W"le =WW=4 bubo bomme &a prow2lon of hoosing fix the WMM* low. low and moderato foepme The dabIbility of Newport Bak& ao a saxWoolial comantalty and do Ink of devatop" J=d bm nmaltad in exhammly h(gh fend cost. The %dMudw 'of CDBG and admc lm wWa ftik help to Pod= SMIlcoal homing to the City for the w&emcly low, low and =dmft iseesoe Parsoca; and fumBim Priorities we based on the housing needs fdandfied In Ste 17 3 NB 25718 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ONE -YEAR ACTION PLAN PROGRAM YEAR 2005-2006 NB 20545 2. STRATEGIC PLAN JNewport Beach Program Objectives: Special Needs '• TM MA Cons WQMd Fton fuel deaaba ft needs of pecaome who 8M tat Wmaleas but "0 pest rwetP pepulafiore fiduda Ndady, lbitl aiderly, P&vW* %ft dbeb sm OnOMrl. ptveft, deVelOpeWbrA peraan6 with 1," or GRwr Chv eddiafon Omms wdh MVIAIDS and Owtfanrmea, end vbW Iarmhg mAut+t. DO CRY v,A cw*v a to Provide *NkMv for ADA SWwmlk brpm"Menx to PAM fa"" tiroughsut the C#Y to eras aasedMW lu rWdant WO dam. In ft upowrift program YM. ft CRY VAN provide $W= for tuck IrnprompentL i wprova suvkws to akluly ras ftw 8anbm ere fw hweW and fastest growing special road` popalatbn in Newport SoKb. The Cry DWI Pf Mde wPPW to aenbrs to atobte ttom to mmah bdependeM. In the upowrkv program Year. ttw tats ws provide $15AOO d COM forcing to FISH Harbor Area, tram b adn+hle W 219k Mobte Meals Progaf and tr7,0tm to Sault Oariy seraa Savbae, tto, to adMtnbter owt Horto•OaQvared Meat ROPMI boar pvWwro ddkw ran Mmm mama b homebaurd senbm Ihmmhout NswW 8WAL TMs WA4C6 mows aantom who may OMNWUo beemo hs8WSwmnwd refah in chair homes and - O'' s= aPPat� "Q?°Vbaa4Vkt13�tufstaa8ddlai6ns Pwwm aufbriv from m beftme addbtlam am a tangw papomwn of tba CPA Ar4;Fmity Sbtorgrr. Oran a P"m hm boom tiw recomy pmcea. Odra to a hgtwr t imm they wX be=" a kuftbnt In fm upconirg pW= ym. the City we OM*M ao 6uppat ow efrartt of sw*v PmOte In Need (SPIN) by 0AUft fwt StbsOatea Abuts R&Mb>gtedoa PWM VM 3SAOO Of • CDBli ttardtg. Ttit prograra'PwWw sooeea b tsooaery proprana b homelaes 66d Iow- traana b>dvidaels whom ottrerwtee w,tfd not erabrd ouch ea�tcae. Ito program (ndtMes one rnaAt d rmm • _s, Y and troatd, t6, and arippbenerrml sarvleoa tooueod on amplayrnard, madbd a:tl�ioo, and r to 00 2005-MM PWM YM, uw CRY WE praVide $4.WO of COM fonds to brvrtwJW Haines, e 6W 430P4 hutmkV PrOPon for aduga Um vMr IfV or A s. the onbf pmJsot of Ys kYrd It Orange COurb. Merry Ham afthhob rs fm pr 4aa Futdt vM bo used to Provide steR Starke end MOW= m*PM• 1:o program avpodt tG am* 40 dW& h Omnya Cmty. e • • "I Or a6a►OAY MICe ANNCAI. Aer.00 PLAT. FAN PAOOAAV YOAA 2666 PA09 a•a lrlftl� Ii M, _27 Y Q Q r C Z Cftnty ofOrmso uu ofCrat Gaps j xtooa>.: c:auom� ®afGl[e (COG7 Y � � ' Qp�IWwywfdaaeli $.Y! -7 IODS.mOYPIaM 'C NB 26505 � VAIIE tRT l� r n_m0 .,.... ��l ®ate© xtooa>.: c:auom� ®afGl[e (COG7 Y � � ' Qp�IWwywfdaaeli $.Y! -7 IODS.mOYPIaM 'C NB 26505 � VAIIE r .,.... ��l ®ate© xtooa>.: c:auom� ®afGl[e (COG7 Y � � ' Qp�IWwywfdaaeli $.Y! -7 IODS.mOYPIaM 'C NB 26505 City of Newport Beach PY 2006-2007 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report September 2007 CLDM Asi"Isaw • Irw — - =;I STRATEGIC PLAN Dye w The feitowina is a summary of the Fin Year *mhwc Plan and how the &OtlAm Proposed for the upcamkrg pmgrmn yew wM wort toward achieving the gods inc r dad in the Sfrabepic Plan. The lull version of the Strategfo Plan is in the Clgrs 2006 009 Cmedidated Plan and can be obtained from the We Planning The stnabeyfc Boats are dMided between Newport Reach pmOfem abisdlvsa and-HUD- • The Nw4xxt Beech Pmgrm goals were dweloped bawd on the i speoft needs found within the commmky. The HUD-epeaifted goals are Madded by ".the federat gommew t and deefgnod to meet: owww needs found In owrutrumlfts ., ''thntrlglnut the oountry. An acflvly "wit appear more than once glean that 90rrte food and federal goals oveMp. AN a *rob proposed for the 2006 program YW Will BUNG W vo f4w ta - and mo*n *w mo parsons, No aCDAW V4 90* a�fy under a* ser Newport Beach Program Objectltrss Ma6law 9 Prfaifinand t3tratagies: 1. Inorease supply of houft urdfs ziffortloblo housQholds f 01 o new oonsbuolion. 2. MaIMWn wdG*V lave! of Section 8 hawing vauchere and rwg4s*l*d mb wmhtn ' the Ctly.' & Errstrre unMarsal access to fair housing choice wlthln the orb. Spedal Naeds Frmdirgi Prfort0ea 9nd Strabegfea •• S. Yareese aooesdWft of pwjwsswiih dlsabfl w to pub.6c Via! ,: ' . 0 Ir>t�Aaee auPPorin asrrices for perraorrs N4rB 8. Homeless Funding Priorldes and f3bstegfex •106Pre9ervfetrio supplyofemergenoy and bmtW0orim horwMg• 11.Impn" services for hamelem persons and yreverd 91090. Of bOcmT*V -' homeless fi^. m dpsing tlieir house. :.::':'••.' .: ' 'Owsa sit ' •''!' . CtTT.*F lliwroaT 9140N 4ol0AL AQTI0k Yu• roe /A00"M Y{A. 7000 NB 25988 Selective Enforcement State Law Conflicts Invasion of Privacy 32 The Newport Beach Municipal Code § 20.03.030 defines a "Single Housekeeping Unit" as: "The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of and responsibility for common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, and where, if the unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises, and the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager." 33 A "single housekeeping unit" is a household where: MEMBERS ARE AN INTERACTIVE GROUP OF PERSONS WHO • jointly occupy a single dwelling unit, • have joint use of and responsibility for common areas and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, household maintenance, and expenses, AND, IF THE UNIT IS A RENTAL: • all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the unit, • under a single written lease with joint responsibility for the premises, and • the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager. lM Those requirements conflict with California landlord - tenant law: • A landlord is not required to enter into a written lease to rent his dwelling. • There is no requirement under California law that all adult tenants execute a lease or the same lease. • A landlord always remains free to determine the "makeup of the household," subject to fair housing laws. • Landlords have the right to bar or limit a tenant's right to sublet. 35 Enforcement requires a governmental invasion of personal privacy: • Code enforcement is required to determine whether the household members have joint responsibility for chores, maintenance, meals or expenses. • Code enforcement needs to know whether each member of the household has an equal right to be in every room of the house, even private bedrooms. • Code enforcement has to inquire into personal relationships — how else can it decide whether the group is "interactive "? 01 Newport Beach city Table 1: 2000 Census- Tenure by Household Table 3: 2007- Tenure by Household Type household Married-couple Unmarried I household Total % 22.618 59 Renter Occupied 3.331 1,626 Total City 18,398 3.563 Table 4: 2007 Tenure by Household Type ( %) Familv household Married - couple Unmarried Married - couple Unmarried Single male Single female Householder family householder I total' family householder I living alone living alone not living alone Total % Owner Occupied 12,346 1.540 2,081 3,186 976 20,129 56.8% Renter Occupied 3,238 1,500 3,659 3.463 3,463 15,323 43.2% Total City 15.584 3,040 5,740 8,849 4,439 35,452 16,828 Total Table 2: 2000 Census- Tenure by Household Type ( %) Family household Non-family household Married - couple Unmarried Single male Single female Householder family householder living alone living alone not living alone Total Owner Occupied 61.3% 7.7% 10.3% 15.8% 4.8% 100% Renter Occupied 21.1% 9.8% 23.9% 22.6% 22.6% 100% 69% of owner occupied housing = family households 30.9% of renter occupied housing = family households. Table 3: 2007- Tenure by Household Type household Married-couple Unmarried I household Total % 22.618 59 Renter Occupied 3.331 1,626 Total City 18,398 3.563 Table 4: 2007 Tenure by Household Type ( %) Familv household Married - couple Unmarried household family householder I total' Total Owner Occupied 66.6% 8.6% 24.8% 100% Renter Occunied 21.9°/ 10.7°/ 67.4% 100% 75.2% of owner occupied housing = family households 32.6% of renter occupied housing = family households. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census Summary File 3 Table HCT1 and 2007 American Community Survey Table B25115. Note. 2000 Census data reflects Newport Beach city and the annexed areas of Newport Coast and San Joaquin Hills. 1- 2007 American Community Survey does not break out non - family households by type 37 Complaints Asserted At Hearing Re Pacific Shores Request for Reasonable Accommodation Resident Complaint Person who Date of Location of Police committed Infraction infraction Involvement? Infraction 1. Traffic, noise, smoking, trash Unknown Unknown Uncertain — None Bolsa Park Area 2. Overconcentration, profanity, Unknown Unknown Uncertain - None smoking, "suspicious activity" Near 3309 Clay Street 3. Smoking, trash, drug use Unknown Unknown Uncertain — £lone Clai mcd, Bolsa Avenue but no record. @ Clay Street 4. Car accident Unknown Unknown Uncertain - near Unknown 492 Orange Street 5. Overconcentration Unknown Unknown Unknown None 6. Overconcentration Unknown Unknown Unknown None 7. Parking, overcrowding Unknown Unknown Uncertain - near None Clay W. Complaints Asserted At Hearing Re Pacific Shores Request for Reasonable Accommodation Resident Complaint Who Date of Location of Police committed infraction infraction involvement? infraction? B. No permit Unknown Unknown Unknown None 9. Occupants are criminals Unknown Unknown Unknown None 10. Code violations & "overconcentration" Unknown Unknown Unknown None 11. Parking, trash Unknown Unknown Unknown None 2. Police searching for suspect Unknown November Uncertain - Undocumented 6, 2007 Near 3309 Clay Claimed, buy Street no records ce NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GROUP RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTIES, LLC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will conduct a public hearing on October 27, 2009, on or after 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The City Council will consider an appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to deny the application of Pacific Shores Properties, LLC for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 2008 -001 for properties located at 492 Orange Avenue, 492 '/] Orange Avenue, and 3309 Clay Street. The appeal was riled by the applicant. Following is a brief description of the reasonable accommodation requests: A Reasonable Accommodation application for three existing sober living homes located in an R -2 District where such uses are not permitted. The applicant made the following requests for reasonable accommodation to remain in operation at its current location: (1) Pacific Shores requested that residents of its facility at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Ave. and 492 '/z Orange Ave. be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; (2) Pacific Shores requested that the City no longer classify or treat the properties at 3309 Clay, 492 Orange and 492'/2 Orange as "Residential Care Facilities," as defined by NBMC Section 20.05.010; (3) Pacific Shores requested that the City classify the use of the dwellings at 3309 Clay and 492 Orange and 492'/2 Orange as a legal nonconforming use; (4) Pacific Shores requested that all code provisions applicable to the use of 3309 Clay, 492 Orange and 492 '/2 Orange (including Zoning Code, Building Code, fire safety and any other applicable code) be applied to those properties in the same manner that those codes are applied and enforced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2; (5) Pacific Shores requested that the City allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed residential care facility located in a residential district zoned R -2, where such uses are not permitted unless a use permit has been applied for and received, pursuant to the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.020. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality AG (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This Gass of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061.6.3 of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to these applications. If you challenge these projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The staff report may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newoortbeachca.gov beginning on the Wednesday prior to the hearing. For more information, call (949) 6443232 or (949) 6443002. To be added to a permanent notification list of these hearings, e-mail ibrownonewaortbeachca.aov and ask to receive these notices. Project File No.: PA2008 -181 Activity No.: RA200 01 ` V Leilam I. Brown City Clerk Easy Paalm Labeh I • LNnd aloiq I ry ® AVEW(m mom IJse Averya Template $1600 Food Pww expose io ; E e 1 1 930 590 43 FRANK L DOYLE 3262 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 930 590 46 MELISSA ADAMS 0 PO BOX 100 SUNSET BEACH, CA 90742 937 350 96 TRISH COURY 3251 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 350 99 NEAL DOFELMIER 3247 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 10 MARY I OU HANNA 511 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 13 MARK MORTON 517 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 18 RANDY ELIOT OLSHEN 741 MARTINGALE LN PARK CITY, UT 84098 937 351 21 LYNN C SOYLEMEZ 407 BOLSA AVE NEWPORI REACH, CA W663 937 35124 HOLLIE D KEETON 300 RIALTO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTIES 177 RIVERSIDE AVENUE #212 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 Nquatbs f"Iles 6 paler 930 590 44 LINDA MARIE JOVANELLY 3245 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 350 61 MICHAEL ALVAREZ 3233 CLAY ST #1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 350 97 MATTHEW P & DINA M SAENZ 3253 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 08 RYAN TOLLNER 507 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 35111 EV.A C NIAUCK 513 ORANGE AVE. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 14 DONNA MURATALLA 519 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 19 JUAN ANTONIO CAMACHO JR. 3305 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 22 JOHN E RAIDY 409 BOLSA AVE NELVPORT REACH. CA X2663 937 351 29 DEBRA LEITNER 3308 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 2916 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 52663 Renhaz A la hachwe aHn do ! 930 590 45 BROWNING 3256 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 350 62 CLAIRE STEELE 3231 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 350 98 JILL C DONAHUE 3245 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 09 MARK B HIROMOTO 509 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 12 JIM NIADDFN 515 ORANGE. AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 17 LISA MARIE FABIAN 3301 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 35120 DAVID W OBBAGE 3307 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 23 RONALD LOPEZ 411 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 35130 MARCO BUFFETTI 3310 CLAY ST #B NEWPORT REACH, CA 92663 Council District 2 56 Labels — Owner PA2008 -181 for RA2008 -001 492 & 494 Orange Ave and 3309 Clay Street www avow mm pp woa/traArM i w up &TMFr.v 1=NftM v i DES a 24W Y nIFQI •I 9 425 271 01 HUNG V ONG AVE #205 307 P A NEW ORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 01 ALICE CONN 611 DR NlVIORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 13 BGR VISIONS LLC 2064 PHALAROPE CT COSTA MESA, CA 92626 425 29102 DAMIR AUJAGHIAN 318.5 JASMINE AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 425 292 01 RICHARD H ALLRFD 3331 E 151. H SI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 04 VOIGNE YVONNE DES 504 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 42S 292 08 DIANA D SPRINGER 3300 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 11 NEIL POWERS 3408 US AVE VPORT BEACII, CA 97ub 425 293 03 ROSS E MCELFRESH 514 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 293 06 TERRY A TRAMBLIE 3244 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 27102 HUNG V ONG 307 PLACENTIA AVE #205 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 02 ALICE CONNER 611 CLIFF DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 28333 JOHN JCARLTON 1362 GALAXY DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 425 291 03 508 ONB LLC 301 SHIPYARD WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 02 KIRK C STRODLL 508 ORANGE. AVL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 42S 292 05 3312 CLAY STREET LLC 3187 AIRWAY AVE #H COSTA MESA, CA 92626 425 292 09 WILLIAM BELDEN GUIDERO 342 62ND ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 12 SHERYL L BREWER 214 FERNLEAF AVE CORONA DEL MAR, (:A 92675 425 293 04 JANET MOORE 69 ASILOMAR RD LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 425 29307 T ROBERT CAROLAN 2309 EAIRHILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 7 425 28117 BRUCE K CLEWORTH 3250 BROAD 5T NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 12 LAURA CAPPELLETTI 486 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 291 01 EVAN B THOMAS 522 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 291 10 OTOLITH LLC 7300 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29203 JOHN LYNN HART 49 BALBOA C`JS NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29207 WILLIAM J WINTER 1905 FULLERTON AVE #W COSTA MESA, CA 92627 425 292 10 NEIL) POWERS 3408 MARCUS AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 293 02 DANIEL W & KIMBERLY E MCDONOUG 518 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BLACH, CA 92663 425 29305 CHRISTOPHER E HOBSON 510 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 293 08 BAILEY 22322 HARWICH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 Y AMMVIOD --08.1 T mdn-dw pmw in nwm p � 1 X0915.Amv 1!� N wmPn mned v' +.Umb" 937 350 99 937 351 08 RESIDENT RESIDENT 3247 BROAD ST 507 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 10 937 35111 RESIDENT RESIDENT 511 ORANGE AVE 513 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 13 937 351 14 RESIDENT RESIDENT 517 ORANGE AVE 519 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 18 937 351 19 RESIDENT RESIDENT 3303 CLAY ST 3305 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 21 937 35122 Rr.SIDF.NT R= SIDFNT 407 BOLSA AVF 109 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 24 937 35129 RESIDENT RESIDENT 413 BOLSA AVE 3308 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NO AP k NO AP N RESIDENT RESIDENT 497 ORANGE AVE 495 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 35109 RESIDENT 509 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 12 RESIDENT 515 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 17 RESIDENT 3301 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 20 RESIDENT 3307 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 351 23 RESIDFNT 411 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 35130 RESIDENT 3310 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Council District 2 80 Labels - Occupant PA2008 -181 for RA2008 -001 492 & 494 Orange Ave and 3309 Clay Street �1 0 A 3AV- 09'OWt ! .*4w wow in +W++ j1B11°� ! SMS env iwao6 a zomm { w w• famwv p. *went 'P Sues 425 271 01 RESIDENT. 495 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 271 01 RESIDENT 495 OLD NEWPORT BLVD 112 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 01 RESIDENT 492 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 12 RESIDENT 486 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 283 33 RESIDENT 480 OLD NEWPORT BLVU NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 291 02 RESIDENT 510 OLD NEWPORT BLVD D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29102 RESIDENT 510 OLD NEWPORT BLVD B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 291 02 RESIDENT 510 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT REACH, Cl 92661 425 292 01 RESIDENT 3321 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 02 RESIDENT 508 ORANGE AVE B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 271 01 RESIDENT 493 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 27102 RESIDENT 481 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 28201 RESIDENT 494 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 13 RESIDENT 488 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29101 Rf S�DENT S22 OLD NEWPORT BCVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29102 RESIDENT S14 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29102 RESIDENT 510 OLD NEWPORT BLVD A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29103 RESIDENT 508 OLD NEWPORT BLVD 'lFV -!PORT MACH. U, 92(;63 425 29201 RESIDENT 3331 15TH ST NEWPORT BFACH. CA 92663 425 29203 RESIDENT 506 ORANGE AVE B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 T � F -- 1 425 27101 RESIDENT 485 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 281 17 RESIDENT 3250 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 02 RESIDENT 3309 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 282 16 RESIDENT 496 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29102 RESIDENT S10 OLD NEWPORT BLVD C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 291 02 RESIDENT 510 OLD NEWPORT BLVD C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29102 RESIDENT 512 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 291 10 RESIDENT 500 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BFACH, C1 92663 425 29202 RESIDENT 508 ORANGE AVE A NEWPORT BFACH, CA 92663 425 29203 RESIDENT 506 ORANGE AVE A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 u AMMV- 09"OW� UM- AAMOTAMM 425 292 D4 RESIDENT 504 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 07 RESIDENT 3304 CLAY ST A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29209 RESIDENT 513 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 12 RESIDENT 3311 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 293 02 RESIDENT 516 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 293 05 RESIDENT 510 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 293 07 RESIDENT 3238 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 930 590 43 RESIDENT 3262 BROAD ST NFWPORI BI ACH, U, 112663 930 590 46 RESIDENT 3239 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 350 96 RESIDENT 3251 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 T .4w-cow pww m a ww luo "J" 09LS vAMy Wv4a M zwgpn SP UP uN1„4 % V " I JIw t mm fm"m 42529205 RESIDENT 3314 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 07 RESIDENT 3304 CLAY ST B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 10 RESIDENT 517 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 12 RESIDENT 3305 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29303 RESIDENT .', I -1 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29306 RESIDENT 3244 CLAY ST 1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29308 RESIDENT 3234 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 930 590 44 RESIDENT 3245 CLAY ST NI WPORT MACH, CA 92663 937 35061 RESIDENT 3233 CLAY ST NEWPORT REACH. CA 92663 937 350 97 RESIDENT 3253 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 05 RESIDENT 3312 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 08 RESIDENT 3300 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 11 RESIDENT 521 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 292 12 RESIDENT 3301 15TH 5T NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29304 RFSIDCNT 512 SOLSA AVL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29306 RESIDENT 3244 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 425 29308 RESIDENT 3232 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 930 590 45 RESIDENT 3256 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, Cis 92663 937 35062 RESIDENT 3231 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 937 35098 RESIDENT 3245 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 y rA f -`-- ---•.. 9 - PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PHONE: 9491644 -3200 FAX: 9491644 -3229 Please see the attached radius map and mailing labels created for properties within a 300 -foot radius, excluding roads and waterways for non - residentially zoned properties, of the subject parcels located at 492 Orange Avenue. 494 (292 %) Orange Avenue, and 3309 Clay Street in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange. The property information was acquired through the Newport Beach GIS Web Mapping system. Further, the information is based upon the most up -to -date records of the county tax assessor and is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. October 15, 2009 Signature eparer 40) Date Prepared F \Users%PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 20081PA2008- 181\Radius Map and Mailing Labels \RA2008 -001 Preparer's Statennent.docx 500 530 520 540 510 \C 166 LP3i O 0 O� 2� Radius Map PA2008 -181 for RA2008 -001 492 Orange Avenue 494 Orange Avenue 3309 Clay Street ♦ • tio+ • a� 522 \ - 00, -. 512 S17\ 508 � 51 3 ►' \ 9�'=J 519 511507 • FA 1515 �• sl 500 4954 509 1331 ,'• i 497. 508 504 3311 492 . r -�-' 521 \ 494 3314.]1517!'7 496 3309 33081t_._:�i� P 3231 \• i ...• 513 yP 51B \ 483 I- °114'111330 3300V+ .� 516 ' 495 4BB -'-- -4 3303 n y'i. 514 721539 \�3' 486 .�: li° 512 535 4. fyS 481 i' 3262 ■ N 3244 1'rS10 533 P 546 r'• 477 -+ 3238 527 Sf1,Q" 542 \• 475 481032,5312563239 3234 523 h 536 471 ¢ 3245 3250 3231 3226 521 ��2 334 541 3 \' 7 519 h 530 461 455 000 449 44a a47 472 3244 322 3220 539 Q 470 3241 0 3238 3221 3216 y�Q' 26 5 517 522 537 Q' 546 46B 3231 G 3232 3215 3208 531 O 542 518 ' r < 4 3229 6 x 3209 525 SAP 538 514 3221 m 3226 3200 521 Py 534 C 460 3205 508 517 0 456 3215 3220 475 0 GP S7A30 535 ®255ft NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GROUP RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTIES, LLC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will conduct a public hearing on October 27, 2009, on or after 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The City Council will consider an appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to deny the application of Pacific Shores Properties, LLC for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 2008 -001 for properties located at 492 Orange Avenue, 492 %2 Orange Avenue, and 3309 Clay Street. The appeal was filed by the applicant. Following is a brief description of the reasonable accommodation requests: A Reasonable Accommodation application for three existing sober living homes located in an R -2 District where such uses are not permitted. The applicant made the following requests for reasonable accommodation to remain in operation at its current location: (1) Pacific Shores requested that residents of its facility at 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Ave. and 492'/2 Orange Ave. be treated as a single housekeeping unit as defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; (2) Pacific Shores requested that the City no longer classify or treat the properties at 3309 Clay, 492 Orange and 492'/2 Orange as "Residential Care Facilities," as defined by NBMC Section 20.05.010; (3) Pacific Shores requested that the City classify the use of the dwellings at 3309 Clay and 492 Orange and 492'/2 Orange as a legal nonconforming use; (4) Pacific Shores requested that all code provisions applicable to the use of 3309 Clay, 492 Orange and 492 %2 Orange (including Zoning Code, Building Code, fire safety and any other applicable code) be applied to those properties in the same manner that those codes are applied and enforced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2; (5) Pacific Shores requested that the City allow the continued operation of an existing unlicensed residential care facility located in a residential district zoned R -2, where such uses are not permitted unless a use permit has been applied for and received, pursuant to the provisions of NBMC Section 20.91A.020. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061.6.3 of the CEQA Guidelines). It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not subject to CEQA. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to these applications. If you challenge these projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The staff report may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov beginning on the Wednesday prior to the hearing. For more information, call (949) 6443232 or (949) 6443002. To be added to a permanent notification list of these hearings, e-mail jbrowna_newportbeachca.gov and ask to receive these notices. Project File No.: PA2008 -181 Activity No.: RA200fhOO1 ` 4 Leilam I. Brown City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On — 10 l (, 2009, I posted the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: PACIFIC SHORES PROPER'T'IES, LLC Date of Hearing: October 27, 2009 G'r1' Mrow of F) a Brown, Leilani � 6M Nlo6Y•el ` From: Steven Polin Ispolin2 @earthlink.net) AC-6T, Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:23 PM To: Brown, Leilani; pbobko; Kiff, Dave Cc: Chris Brancart; ebrancart@brancart.com; james dee; Mark Manderson; Dana (CRT) Mulhauser; paul.e.smith Subject: Pacific Shores appeal Attachments: AppealofHearingOfficersDecision res.5.pdf; AppealofHearingOfficersDecision res. 1.pdf; AppealofHearingOfficersDecision res. 2.pdf; AppealofHearingOfficersDecision res. 3.pdf; AppealofHearingOfficersDecision res.4.pdf Dos. Brown, please find attached Pacific Shore's appeal, of the decision of Hearing Officer'I'homas Allen denying its request for a reasonable accommodation in accordance with \BSt(' 20.94.40. Please do not hesitate to contact the if you hate an% questions or need additional information. Thank vou, Steve Polin Steven 11olin Law Office of Stcvcn G. Polin 3034 Tennyson Street. NW Washington- DC 20015 202 - .3.31 -5848 202. 537- 2986(fax) spolin2:'ri carthlink.net This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 18 C.S.C. Sections 2510 -2521 and intended to he delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, attorney work - product or attomey- client privileged. If this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee(s), the recipient should immediately notify the sender by F: -MAIL and by telephone 202 - 331 -5848 and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read. used, copied, reproduced. stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee(s), except with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee(s). Thank you. Project No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER 2008 -181 Application No. HO- 2009 -17 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orant Date of Hearing Officers decision July 22` Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202- 331 -5848 e Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue .2009 for (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) that the residents of the aforementioned addresses be treated as a single housekeeping unit Reasons for Appeal Denial of the request with prejudice. 'Pacific Shores Properties does not waive its right to challenge the jurisdiction of the City Council to hear this appeal by vifue of the fact that the denial of the request was oaled Jury 2. 2009. but the apphranl was not given notice of ew denial. By letter dalod Juty 22. 2009, the City notified applicant Thal the appeal period runs from the dale of the letter norwithstandig the provision of NBMC 20.05.040. Steven G. Polin 08/03/2009 Signature of Appellant Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: D�L,, 2 h2LO�— 830 Received by Fee received Date C: \Documents and Settings \soborny\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content.Outlook\277DB2P7\Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision.docx Revised 02 -04 -09 jjb CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA2008 -181 Application No. HO- 2009 -018 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202- 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Oran Date of Hearing Officer's decision July 22' Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties rN Avenue for (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for reasonable accommodation that the City no classify or treat aforementioned properties as "Residential Care Facilities" as that term is defined by NBMC 20.05.010 Reasons for Appeal Denial of the request with prejudice. ' Pacific Shores Properties does not waive its right to challenge the jurisdiction Di the City Cwncil to hear thus appeal Dy vrctue of the [act Nat the denial of the request was dated July 2. 2019. W the applicant was nor green notice al the dens/. By letter dated July 22. 2009. the City no4red applicant that the appeal period nuns from the date of the [ever notwithstanding the provision of NBMC 20 05.040. Steven G. Polin °M 22 " . , eS 08/03/2009 Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: ttN� � .V �rYWVr Received by Date -0- � bbi Fee received Date C:\Documents and Settings\soborny\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content.Outlook\277DB2P7\Appeal of Hearing Officer's Declsion.docx Revised 02 -04 -09 bb CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA 2008 -181 Application No. HO- 2009 -019 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202- 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officers decision July 20 Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties for (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for a reasonable accommodation that the City treat the aforementioned properties as a legal non conforming use by "grandfathering" the use of properties as in compliance with the NBMC prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2008 -005 Reasons for Appeal Granting the request in part and denying in part, by failing to 'grandfather" the use of the properties of do City Council to hear this appeal by vine of the fact that the denial of the reduest was dated Jury 2.2009. Iwi the appboant was not given notice of do denial. 'By We, load July 22, 2009, the City notified applicant that the appeal perod runs from the date of the lever noNvidWwding the provision of NOW 20.05.040. Steven G. Polin 1U.—o 08/03/2009 Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE USE Y: Received by Fee received Date Ss0 Dat C:1Documents and Settings5sobornylLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent .OutlookU77DB2P71Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision.docx Revised 02-04 -09 j b CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA2008 -181 Application No. HO- 2009 -020 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202 - 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officer's decision July 22* Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) 0 1• Request for reasonable accommodation that the City for apply all code provision to the use of the aforementioned properties, including but not limited to zoning, building, fire safety and any other applicable codes be applied in the same manner that those codes are applied and enforced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2. Reasons for Appeal Denial of the request with prejudice. 'Pacific Shores Properties does not waive its right to challenge the jurisdiction of Oro City Council to hear This appeal by virtue of dre fad that the denial of the request was dated JNy 2. 2009. bul the applicant was not given roliop of ere dental. By lather dated Jury 22, 2009, the City notified appf c nl mat Ole appeal period runs from the dale of the lever nonwithiaanlhng the provision of NBMC 20.05.W. Steven G. Polinm; �y- Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received by 1� Fee received 08/03/2009 Date 30 Date C: \Documents and Settings\sobomy\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.OutlookQ77082P71Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision.docx Revised 02 -04-09 jjb CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA2008 -181 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Application No. HO- 2009 -021 Phone 202- 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officer's decision U y 22 20 Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for reasonable accommodation that the City for waive the requirement of NBMC 20.91A.020 that unlicensed residential care facilities may be located only in a residential district zoned MFR with a use permit. Reasons for Appeal Denial of the request with prejudice. 'Pacific Shores Properties does not waive its right to challenge the jurisdiction of the City Coundf to hear dus appeal by virtue d the fact that the denial of tho request was dated July 2. 2009, but the applicant was not given notice of the denial By ietrar dated July 22, 2009, the City notified applicant that ft appeal period runs from the dale of the letter noWthsfandig the provision of NBW 20.05.040 Steven G. Polin w www,c wn. e. a..-« we..:e..mv..a <•cs f >.]Ld tl Pl ]1lJM pW Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Receive by Fee received 08/03/2009 Date �3 oq Date CA)ocuments and SetBngslsobomylLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files \Content.Oudook%277DB2P71Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision.docx Revised 02-04 -09 jjb STEVEN G. PoLLN, ESQ. Arto"Wy Ar Law Lcilani Brown, MMC City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ms. Brown: RECEIVED 1109 AUG 10 0 0 27 QtrIL'f DiE CiTY CURK August A09."'. , 0 ' r : ^, �i BtA RE: Pacific Shores Properties Appeal of Hearing Officer Decision 3034 TkNNYsoN ST. N.W. WmirmGmN, D.C. 20015 Ta (202) 331 -5848 FAY. (202) 537 -2986 Srous2 @eAKnutNK.v&7 Please find enclosed copies of the appeal of Pacific Shores Properties' appeals of the decision of the I learing Officer with original signatures. ova ,� /mg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA 2008 -181 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Application No. HO-2009 -17 Phone 202 - 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officer's decision July 22* Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) for that the residents of the aforementioned addresses be treated as a single housekeeping unit Reasons for Appeal Denial of the request with prejudice. Pacific shares Properties does not waive its tight to challenge the jurisdiction of the City Council trr hear nob appear by wtue of Oro tact that me denial of the request was dated July 2. 2009, but the applicant was not given notice of the denial. By letter dated July 22. 2009. the City, notified applicant that the appeal period runs from the date of the hare, nolwidistanding the provision of NBMC 20.05.000. 61eVe—n G. Polin ar aria onw a�nv o.m Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE U N : lr r ReceividO by Fee received 08/03/2009 Date Date CMocuments and SettingslsobomylLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent.Oullook 1277DB2P71Appeal of Hearing Officer's Deasion.docit Revised 02 -04 -09 bb ��o >� chi �m M MOO \ m M � N t CMocuments and SettingslsobomylLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent.Oullook 1277DB2P71Appeal of Hearing Officer's Deasion.docit Revised 02 -04 -09 bb Project No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER 2008 -181 Application No. HO- 2009 -018 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202- 331 -5848 She Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officers decision July 22* Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties 2009 n (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for reasonable accommodation that the City no classify or treat aforementioned properties as 'Residential Care Facilities" as that term is defined by NBMC 20.05.010 Reasons for Appeal Denial of fJ,e requesl with prejudice. Pacific snores Properties does not waive Its right to challenge Tie jurisdiction of the City Council to hear this appeal by vin» ol the fad tlet the dertlal of the repreet wee dated July 2. 2M. but the appkant was not 91%'en notice of the denial. By letter dated July 22, 2009, the City MMW applicant that the appeal period runs horn the date of the loner notwithstandkV the provision of NBUC 20 05.040. A Striven -G�oTin o.r aaoam nmr>orm Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: 08/03/2009 Date Received by Fee received Date 3 1 :)J C:\Documents and Settings\sobomy\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.OudookV77DB2P7%Appeal of Hearing Officers Decision,doex Revised 02 -04-09 jib q m (D f C) m M M = N C:\Documents and Settings\sobomy\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.OudookV77DB2P7%Appeal of Hearing Officers Decision,doex Revised 02 -04-09 jib Project No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER 2008 -181 Application No HO- 2009 -019 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Oran Date of Hearing Officers decision July 22* Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties Phone 202- 331 -5848 Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue .2009 for (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for a reasonable accommodation that the City treat the aforementioned properties as a legal non conforming use by "grandfathering" the use of properties as in compliance with the NBMC prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2008 -005 Reasons for Appeal Granting the request in part and denying in part, by failing to 'grandfather the use of the properties of fie City Cow" b hear fts appeal by *Tin of On fad Mal dre dor:el of ere regyegr was dated Jury 2.2009. Out are ap kwi4 was rpt given nodce of Me derAel. By Weer dated Jury 22.2009. ate CM notified appicam Orat the appeal period tyre from dte date of the WW notwltlefandig the provWon of NBMC 20.05.040. Ste \4r G. Polin orrr. anoromu.. z a.or Signature of Appellant Received by Fee received 08/03/2009 Date Date C:IDocuments and SettingslsobomylLocal SetungslTemporary Internet FileslOontent .Outlook1277082P71Appeal of Hearing Officers Decision.docx Revised 02 -04-09 jib CD M rn � � O C:IDocuments and SettingslsobomylLocal SetungslTemporary Internet FileslOontent .Outlook1277082P71Appeal of Hearing Officers Decision.docx Revised 02 -04-09 jib CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA 2008-181 Name of Appellant Application No. Pacific Shores Properties Phone HO- 2009 -020 202 - 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officer's decision July 22 20 Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties IM (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) Request for reasonable accommodation that the City apply all code provision to the use of the aforementioned properties, including but not limited to zoning, building, fire safety and any other applicable codes be applied in the same manner that those codes are applied and enforced to single family and two family residential uses located in residential districts zoned R -2. Reasons for Appeal Denial of Bee request with prejudice. Padfic shores Pmper6es does not wane its right to challenge the junsd ction ol the City Courodl t° hear this appeal W vitae of are fag that the denial of me request was dated Nly 2. 2009, NA me appkc was not given rwhoe of the denial. By laver dated July 22. 2009, the CM rrotfed applicant mat the ap" period runs hen the dam of me letter r*hvWatandmg the provision of NBW 20.05.040. 00" °"° "� °"" 08/03/2009 sw.a m.w.a+�O.ew +•a eue rr ma row amrx arso• Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received by Fee received Date Date C:1Documents and Setfings\sobomylLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent .Oudook\277DB2P7%Appeal of Hearing Officers Decisicn.docx Revised 02 -04-09 bb qrm ' - m N Q M C:1Documents and Setfings\sobomylLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent .Oudook\277DB2P7%Appeal of Hearing Officers Decisicn.docx Revised 02 -04-09 bb CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Project No. PA 2008 -181 Name of Appellant Pacific Shores Properties Phone HO- 2009 -021 202- 331 -5848 Site Address 3309 Clay Street, 492 Orange Avenue, 4921/2 Orange Avenue Date of Hearing Officer's decision July 22` Name of Applicant Pacific Shores Properties (Description of application filed with Hearing Officer) 2009 Request for reasonable accommodation that the City for waive the requirement of NBMC 20.91A.020 that unlicensed residential care facilities may be located only in a residential district zoned MFR with a use permit. Reasons for Appeal Derdel of the request with pre)udlce. *Pacific Shores Properbee does not waive Ks right to chalenge the jurisdiction of the City Go ncY to hw thm appeal tiY v lue Of Ore race that the denial of the request was dated July 2. 2009, but the appikant was not given notice or me deNal By leper dated July 22. 2009. the Chy no#W appkaro that the appeal peoM n horn ere data of the letter nolwMistendirg the provision of NBMC 20.05.070. Steve'd)G"Polin Signature of Appellant FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received by 08/03/2009 Date Fee received Date CADocuments and Settings\sobomylocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Cuntent.Oudook\277DB2P7Wppeal of Hearing Officers Decislon.docx Revised 02-0409 lib il M c� ano o m M N CADocuments and Settings\sobomylocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Cuntent.Oudook\277DB2P7Wppeal of Hearing Officers Decislon.docx Revised 02-0409 lib Authorized fi, Publish Advertaxments of all kinds Including public nohcc. by I3ccrccnT the. 19 1.a Cowl oTOrange County. CahEornl:k.yyaabC �atl,� /ED SeptenMr 29. 1961. and A 2473? I Junu I L Ic)6i. E�,JI t(v` EL...,.,_ I \ PROOF OF PUBLICATWT 22 10 Ob �_�rOFT CE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA) CITY nI= IV?CPT ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years. and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa. County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: October 17, 2009 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 20, 2009 at Costa Mesa, California. Signatur GROUP RESIDENTIAECAIEPACIM APPLICATION EOA REASONW A(COMMODATNNE PACINC SNORES PROPERTIES, LEC OTIC[ IS N[R[BY GIVEN the' tre City Coun. Mt Cty nl Newport Beach will conduct ,bbc hearing on October 27. 2009. on or aft 00 Is m in the City Council Chambe Iwldmg A) at 3300 Newport Bacteria, loporl Beach. California. The City Couni ill consider an appeal of the heating Officer mision to deny the application of Pacd ,ores Properties. LLC far Reasonable Accor odation Permit No 2008001 for prope,t, cated at 492 Orange Avenue, 492 '/r Oran, venue. and 3309 Clay Street. The appeal or ad by the applicant following is a bo !scnotwn of the reasonable accommodate Reasonable Accommodation application f ree existing sober living homes located in i 2 District where such uses are not pe, nitte It applicant made the following reoi esis f asonable accommodation to remain in Opel sn at its current location. ) Pacific Shores requested that residents i facility at 3309 Clay Street. 491 Dram re and 492 1b Orange Ave. be treated as nQla housekeeping unit as defined in Sectii 1.03.030 of the Newport Beach Mumcm ') Pacific Shores requested that the City i tiger classify or treat the prope,tes at 331 ay. 492 Orange and 492 �/> Orange l esidenllal Care facilities.' as defined I 9MC Section 20.05.010. 1) Pacific Shares requested that the Ci ossify the use of the dwellings at 3309 Cl ,d 492 Orange and 492 'h Orange as a leg mconformme use. ) Pacific Shores requested that all col ovistons applicable to the use of 3309 Cis 12 Orange and 492 C Orange (including 2omi ode. Budding Code. fire safety and any oth )plicable code) be applied to thou properti the same manna, that those codes a )plied and enforced to single family ono tv mlly residential uses located in resident stricts toned R -2. i) Pacific Shares requested that the City all, a continued operation of An existing u sensed ,es.denlul case facility located in sidental district toned R 2. where such us e not permitted unless a use permit has bas soiled for and received. pursuant to tl OTIC[ IS NEIIDT WRTNSR 611/[N that tin aivdy has been determined to be categim Illy exempt under the requirements of th abfo,ma Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ride, Class 1 (Eiostmg faulitles). This clas projects has been determined not to hav significant effect an the environment and i x empt from the provisions of CEQA. Thi :tivity is also covered by the general rul at CEQA applies only to projects that from to potential lot causing a significant effec , the environment (Section 15061.8 .3 of th EQA Guidelines). It can be seen with cerlano at there is no possibility that this aclrvit if have a significant effect on the enveon ant and it is not subject to CEQA 1 interested parties may appear and preset, slimony in regard to these applications. I ro challenge these projects in court, you ma , limited to raising only those issues you o ;hl else raised at the public hesu n Ascribed in this notice) ar m written curre iondence delivered to the City. at, or prio 1. the public hearing. The staff recall may Is viewed at the City Clark's Office. City a lwpurt Beach. 3300 Newport Boulevard. New in Beach. California. 92663 or at the City o ewpotl Reach well at www IwnrlbaowAce.pv beginning on the Wed !Sday prior to the hearing. For more nforma ,n. call (949) 6143232 or (949) 6143002 i be added to a permanent notification Its these hearings, email lbrawn Cdd iwMrdmmA,e.tl and ask to receive then ille Ii PA2008 181 No.; RA2008 001 Brown Beach %Costa Mesa