23 (5)
Public Comment
From:Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:38 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Loretta Day
Subject:Fwd: CCF Draft Ordinance _City of Anaheim
Attachments:20200803 City of Anaheim Ordinance comments v2..docx; ATT00001.htm; 20200915
tjs 2 ted white re ordinance.pdf; ATT00002.htm
Please see below
Have a great day,
Tamara Jimenez
Community Relations Manager
Lighthouse
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient
Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts.
160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The
Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to
whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol
or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Timothy Salyer <tsalyer@lighthousetreatment.com>
Date: September 15, 2020 at 11:22:52 AM PDT
To: Ted White <TedWhite@anaheim.net>
Cc: Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>,
Subject: RE: CCF Draft Ordinance _City of Anaheim
Ted, attached please find a copy of:
1.Letter to you regarding ordinance;
2.Memo re proposed ordinance.
I would appreciate it if you could see that all council members get a copy of each. I appreciate working
with you on this. Tim
Timothy J. Salyer, Esq., CEO
Lighthouse
151 Kalmus Dr., K-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714-328-3230 Cell
1
The information in this e-mail and in any attachments, documents, files or previous email
messages attached to it, are confidential, privileged and intended solely for the use of the
person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or person responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution,
copying or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. This communication may contain information that is subject to legal, professional,
or other privilege, or may otherwise be protected by privilege, work product, immunity or other
legal rules. It must not be disclosed to any person without the sender's authority. Any
unauthorized disclosure, distribution and/or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly
prohibited. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709, the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, interception of e-mail is a crime.
From: Ted White <TedWhite@anaheim.net>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 4:58 PM
To: Timothy Salyer <tsalyer@lighthousetreatment.com>
Subject: CCF Draft Ordinance _City of Anaheim
Tim,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. I appreciate your perspective, and the on-going
service that your organization provides to the Anaheim community. Per our discussion, please find
attached a copy of the draft ordinance that will be considered by the City Council next Tuesday. I also
included the documents that summarize the changes proposed for ease of reference.
For the complete staff report and all attachments, you can find them here as part of the City Council
agenda.
Please call or email if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Ted White
Planning & Building Director | City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
714.765.5209
tedwhite@anaheim.net
For information on any modified services during the declared Emergency Health Crisis, please click here or visit
https://www.anaheim.net/5464/City-Hall-Services-During-Coronavirus.
2
Attachment to Letter dated September 15, 2020
Anaheim Lighthouse Comments on Ordinance No.
Proposed Ordinance & Zoning Code Amendment No. 2020-001-0170
City of Anaheim
1.The seventh “WHEREAS” contains reference to the Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs (“ADP”). ADP no longer exists for several years. They were replaced with the
Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”). This was addressed in the second draft.
2.The nineth “WHEREAS” has a typo on line four “and non-state”. Separate “and” and
“non”. This issue was addressed in the second draft.
3.The thirteenth “WHEREAS” states Anaheim has 205 licensed and/or certified alcoholism
and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities providing 205 beds. The City of Anaheim
is the largest city in Orange County by population with 347,000 residents. The 205 beds
represent .059% of the total population, which is miniscule;
4.The sixteenth “WHEREAS” says, “overconcentration of these facilities in residential
neighborhoods may lead to the institutionalization and commercialization of such
neighborhoods…” This is a clearly false assumption inasmuch as they represent on
.059% of the total population of the City of Anaheim;
5.The twentieth “WHEREAS” cites a 1997 study by the American Planning Association to
support the proposition that “limiting the number of recovering addicts that can be placed
in a single-family home enhances the potential for their recovery…” This is a study that
is 23 years old. It is NOT prepared by a “clinically qualified” organization that has
studied addiction treatment for the last 23 years where significant strides have been made
in the treatment field. At least cite a clinically qualified study. This looks like a boot
strap argument to anyone in the addiction field. If there is a study regarding the number
of addicts living in a home, it could be cited, but it is highly doubtful;
6.The twenty-first “WHEREAS” argues that sober living homes do NOT “provide the
disabled with an opportunity to ‘live in normal residential surroundings’ but rather places
them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional,
campus, and/or dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide
relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life
in a normal residential surrounding…” Sober living homes were never intended to do
that. They are intended to be a temporary intermediary step between institutions and
home. This is consistent with every clinical study and several national institutions who
proscribe a “continuity of care” curriculum for recovery, such as, ASAM, SAMHAS and
the Department of Mental Health. This “WHEREAS” misses the point completely as
written;
7.The twenty-second “WHEREAS” points out some non-essential and irrelevant
distinctions between a sober living environment and a single residential housing unit.
The first one (1) is not true. Recovering addicts generally have more significant ties than
a family. Their ties are life threatening and of utmost importance. A normal household
has ties that are not “chosen”. The second (2) one is not correct either. The “head” of the
“family” makes that decision, just as the head of the family makes that decision in a
normal household. It is really a hair-splitting distinction. The same with the third (3)
one. There is no “sharing” of costs between the parents and the children. The parents
pay for everything. Additionally, what significance is that? Number (5) is not true either.
First, most all sober living homes operate in a similar fashion as a normal household.
There are rules to follow. When broken, they are afforded additional chances to comply.
Only when a member fails to comply in a repeated manner they are asked to leave, unless
it is a cardinal transgression. This is similar to a normal household. That is why there are
so many juveniles in juvenile halls in Orange County;
8.The twenty-third “WHEREAS” is really incorrect. ALL neighborhoods have parking
problems when teenagers drive. Many households have 5 or 6 cars, depending on how
many teenagers live there;
9.The twenty-fourth “WHEREAS” is not correct. The City of Newport Beach, for
instance, has such a parking problem on the peninsula and in Newport Heights, that ALL
those areas have parking restriction and a sticker system. They have extended the
parking restriction into the Dover Shores area. This is ONE city in Orange County. It
has zero to do with sober living homes. It has everything to do with tourists and
teenagers, especially in Newport Heights by the high school. Parking problems in cities
cannot be blamed on sober living homes. This is especially true in Anaheim, where 205
beds represent only .059% of the total population;
10.The twenty-fifth “WHEREAS” is misleading. The distance requirements of the “State
Law” applies ONLY to mental health facilities. Again, at .059% of the total population,
there can be no valid argument related to “overconcentration” in Anaheim;
11. The twenty-sixth “WHEREAS” again is based on the fiction that there “may” be an
overconcentration of sober living homes in the City of Anaheim. Again, the City of
Anaheim is the largest city in Orange County. .059% sober living beds to population
ratio is infinitesimal. You cannot make a serious argument that this number represents a
threat of overconcentration in Anaheim. Therefore, there is no need, nor any basis, for
this legislation and the distancing requirements;
12.The twenty-seventy “WHEREAS” makes little sense at all. The recovering addict DOES
get preferential treatment to assist in their recovery. Both the State and Federal
government believe this is a socially beneficial situation and that is why they formulated
the State and Federal Fair Housing and Employment Acts and the Cal. Health and Safety
Code, sections 11830, et. seq.;
13.The twenty-eighth “WHEREAS” states reasons for this legislation, which are really
unnecessary. There are existing nuisance laws and other personal protection laws that
can be used to assure facilities are not operated in a way that constitutes a nuisance; as
stated above, there cannot be a valid argument regarding “overconcentration” of
neighborhoods; and, the City of Anaheim can provide sober living homes community
housing resource information in person or on its website.
2
C:\\Users\\jhall\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\7R57J5GD\\20200803 City of Anaheim Ordinance comments
v2_.docx