20 (2)
Jennifer L. Hall
Subject:Opposition to GHH on Olmstead
From:
Michelle Priest <
Date:
January 7, 2021 at 6:53:31 PM PST
To:
Jennifer Diaz <JDiaz@anaheim.net>, Jordan Brandman <JBrandman@anaheim.net>, Jose Moreno
<JMoreno@anaheim.net>, Avelino Valencia <AValencia@anaheim.net>, toneal@anaheim.net, "Harry Sidhu
(Mayor)" <HSidhu@anaheim.net>, Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>
Cc:
James Kline < , Tara T <
Subject:Opposition to GHH on Olmstead
Respected Mayor, Mayor-Pro Tem, and City Councilpersons,
I very much wish to express my thanks for what Grandma's House of Hope (GGH) has
done for the City of Anaheim for women and children. The efforts of GHH have done
some positive things.
Sadly, GHH has chosen exactly the WRONG location for a facility for transitional
homeless, drug/alcohol addicted men. Our street is a one-entrance dog-leg with only 20
homes.
Their website explicitly states these men are recently sober--and the house manager is
on their website--1 year sober. All other GHH locations are on main/highly trafficked streets.
We already have a state-licensed facility for the handicapped and mentally
compromised. This facility has been a positive community member in our
neighborhood.
Since the arrival of GHH, our police presence and arrivals are two-fold increase. The
participants of GHH do not engage in daily pleasantries nor do they acknowledge
homeowners on the street. The participants have brought so much fear to our small
community. We question every new person, every car, every action. In a meeting with
GHH in mid-summer, we were told the participants were Anaheim homeless men who
just were going through a rough patch--we have since found out many are drug-
addicted/alcohol addicted and sober just a few months. We have not been honored and
given true information.
We have 12 girls under the age of 15 on our small street--we cannot ensure their safety
with additional non-family transient men on our street. We also cannot be assured none
of these men pose a direct threat to them...as we are given no information on
them. The constant revolving door makes the girls' safety under threat. The average
stay is less than 6 months for GHH participants.
Increasing the participant number will constitute over 45% of the adults on our street--
none of these participants are taxpayers. The amount of trash, traffic, and parked cars
is such an issue.
The GHH participants are required (per their agreement) to be picked up/dropped off at
the main street and/or grocery--however, this is NOT happening. We see men with
1
backpacks being dropped off-hugged, and given money--your Uber driver does NOT do
that!
I am very concerned about the current pandemic--with 13 people in a house with 4
rooms-one dedicated to the house manager--this would necessitate 3-4 men in each
bedroom--there is NO way social distancing could be maintained. These men are NOT
family members and we do not see them wearing masks leaving/entering the
home. We also do not see the space to allow for a "quarantine room" for a new
participant.
As these participants are recently sober, the presence of a Malibu-style rehab facility
immediately next door is of great concern as well. We also think this would not be
beneficial to have this GHH location in our neighborhood.
Finally, in the presentation at the Planning Commission--two of the commissioners
equated GHH to a multi-generational family--this is an inappropriate analysis. The lack
of ability to provide live feedback literally put our neighborhood at a disadvantage--GHH
was able to talk and talk..we the taxpaying neighborhood was only allowed to listen to
the meeting and submit email submissions.
To close, I am in opposition to the expansion of GHH from 6 to 13 and the submission
of the CUP by GHH. Please protect our tight-knit neighborhood and keep our girls
safe. GHH should select another location more in alignment with the other locations.
--
Mahalo,
Michelle Priest MS, EdD
Motto: Don't sip from the Fountain of Knowledge, take huge, big GULPS!!
2