Loading...
Minutes-PC 2004/06/14• CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2004 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04854~ • • ~,~,~. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~"` rY ~' ~` ~~ °' ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~,~ 6~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~, ~~~ ~°~~ ~-~Counci! ~C~a~nbers,~~~ty Ha~ll ~ ~~ ~ r~~rv~.~00 ~oufh Ari~he~m Boule"vard, ~Ar~ahei.m, California ~'~ ~ ~ ~~.~~ u~ l~ . ; ~ F , ~ ~, ~~. r _ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~, ~ ~,~, ~~~.~~°' g' CHAIRPERSON: JAMES VA,NDERBILT-L,INAR~S COMMISSIONERS RRESENT:W_ PAUL~BOSTWICK, KELLY BUFFA,"GAIL EASTMAN, ~~~.~~ ~ n C.~~CILIA FLORES, JERRY O'CONNE~,L D'AVID ~OIVIEf ~' '- COMMISSIONERS AB`S~NT: ~~ NONE ~ g . ~ F: ~ ~ ~ t~ 3 STAFF PRESENT~ ` ~~~ ~ °° - ~~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ' Selma Manri Assistarat~CitykAfitorney ~ `µ A~fr_ed~Y_alda,`Pnncipal Transportation Pla Greg Hastin~s Zoninglp`ivision.Ni'anager . James Ling, Associaf~ ~ivil"`Engirteer ' Greg McCaf~erty, Princ" al Platin~r !_._~ ~~°~`m " Ekly-Morris, Senior Secr tary,° ' _ _: _: ~' ` ~~ Brad Hobson, ~Dep`~utys D~'irector' pf~Comm... DeYelAp. ~,Pat Ghandler, -~er~ior Secretaryz , Mark Asturias;,€ Redev:3 8s Pl`~perty,~e~vices Manager Danielle Masciel ~Word>Proc`essing Oper~ Della Herrick~ kssociaf~`~~~lanner~~-~' -~~" °"' ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~; '' ~2 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~. f ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ M ~~~ k~, ~ ~ ; ~~ ; ~ ~'F '_ ~ °~ ~ ° € ~~`°° ~ ° ~ ~ n ~ . ~ ~ ~ ¢~ ~ s , ~ ,~' r' a ~' ,~ r~ , ~ y~ s.- x ,,, #~,~+s ,~,,. ~ ,,,~ ,,.s., ~~e.~ ~ ~' ~ r= 3~r ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 'e¢~~ ~' ^" ;~~. ~ ~ ~* ~ ~i~ ~~ ' - xe 4~=~ ~". '' ~ ~ x- 6 ~.;~,~.x j`,`~~ ~ i:?~. s°, ~~~ ' . y~. ~d `~.;w.~~~ ~ ~ " .~ .%~`a. 1u g q ~ ~ I r-.,p -.~°` ~ "t k .£~ ~~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ,.:h r .n ,. ,. ~' .. .~ ~ . . .. .. - ~ „ .. ~ .; ., ~,. _ , . > ~ ~ s ' I ._ - ... ~ " i s , e` er _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ ____'____'_____'______~" ___~ _______'_____" ____" " " ________" _'_'______ H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES\SUPPLEMENTALMINUTES 061404.DOC lanninqcommission(c~anaheim.net JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04854 Granted OWNER: Paul Chiavatti, 1340 West Pearl Street, Unit A, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1610 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.16 acre, having a frontage of 63 on the east side of Brookhurst Street, located 142 feet south of the centerline of Harle Avenue. Request to permit a residential group care facility with on-site counseling for up to 13 residents recovering from alcohol and/or chemical dependency. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2004-66 sr1151cw.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares opened the public hearing. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 7. ApplicanYs Testimony: • Paul Chiavatti, 1610 South Brookhurst Street, 1340 N. Pearl St., #A, Anaheim, CA, stated that the Expedition House is proud to have been a business in the City of Anaheim for over 7 years without incident. When they were present at the May 17, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting, there were many people present in support of his efforts to assist peopfe taking control of their lives; including members of the neighborhood, business community, representatives of the board of directors of the Sober Living Coalition, The Head of the National Council of Alcoholism and Drug Dependency of Orange County, The Head of the Drug Court Foundation, Chapman Hospital, Substance Abuse Services Agency of San •Diego and Nar-Co & Nar-Co-Non. Presently they have contracts and affiliations with The Health Care Agency of Orange County, Proposition 36 and PSN Programs, Substance Abuse Services Coordinating Agency, SPIN (Serving People in Need - that helps with up to as much as 4 weeks free rent), The Offices of Substance Abuse Programs, Department of Corrections and The Drug Court Foundation of Orange County. They have been working with The Salvation Army on Lewis Street for seven years to date; Orange County Probation, California Department of Corrections; members of The Trial Orders Association of Orange County; The Orange County Judicial Systems Alternative Sentencing for Drunk Drivers; The Pat Moore Foundation Residential Programs; Yellowstone Women's Recovery for Battered Women and Children in Huntington Beach; Sober Living by the Sea in Newport Beach; and Phoenix House, etc. They are licensed and certified by The State of California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs; County of Orange Sheriff's Department, etc. Currently the property is being managed as a Sober Home with 15 residents who are able to come and go as they please and are allowed to have cars. If the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is approved, the number of cars would be greatly reduced because their clients would not be allowed automobiles and would not be allowed to come and go as they pleased. As stated in their letter of operations their clients would be monitored 24-hours a day and overseen by Dr. Thomas Montgomery, Program Director. Random drug testing would be taken on an ongoing basis, whenever it seemed appropriate. Within the 6 1/2 years that the building has been there as a Sober Home they have never had any complaints from neighbors about any probiems and they have always welcomed anyone to have input regarding any • problems they might have. 06-14-04 Page 2 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Public Testimony: Dr. Thomas Montgomery, The Program Director of the Expedition House, 1175 N. Euclid St., Anaheim, CA, stated that some of the neighbors had expressed concerns to the City Council regarding the growth of an industry within their community but he just wanted to point out that it is primarily a turnaround period for people. He has worked in Anaheim since 1979 a.nd feels that rather than creating additional problems for the community it would be cleaning up a community issue. The clients would be monitored 24-7 as opposed to being loose in the community. Clients would be given drug tests on a regular basis, randomly and for cause. Therefore, he feels it would continue to enhance the community in which they live and would prevent problems from accruing on their street. He supports The Sober Living Home. Kenton Martin, 1610 S. Brookhurst Street., Anaheim, CA, stated that he has been a resident at the Expedition House for approximately 1 year and is also personally in recovery for the disease of drug dependency. He feels very blessed to have obtained a period of over 1 year completely clean and sober time and states a large part of that has been due to the support of the Expedition House. Their facility at 1610 S. Brookhurst Street is a very healthy environment for people trying to recover from the disease of alcohol and drug dependency. The corporate and administrative staff's primary goal is in the best interest of the people and he is very proud to be a resident of the Expedition House. They are an asset to the community, street, and area. They keep their house very clean, and the yard nicely trimmed. It looks like any normal house on the street and fits into the neighborhood. He feels they conduct themselves in a manner which is conducive to good citizenship and are good representatives of the Anaheim community. In his time there for example, an elderly lady who lives alone next door and who has been there for approximately 30-40 years, is periodically checked on by one of their residents to assure she is okay. He feels that she is probably confident knowing that there are people in the neighborhood that care about her well being. Also, in his time there he has never known any kind of crime committed by an Expedition House resident or any kind of incident occurring that would in anyway jeopardize the security of other • residents in the area or cause any sort of harm to be inflicted on anyone. He is very thankful to have the Expedition House in which to live and feels that if given the CUP it would continue to serve as a vital asset in the community to help people obtain recovery. William Mayer, 1621 S. Lamar Street., Anaheim, CA, stated that he has been a resident of Anaheim for 30 years. One of his primary concerns is that the Expedition House is an industry, which to him means it is a business. When he bought his home he bought his home in a residential neighborhood and it is no longer that. As far as he is concerned, what they have is 15 individuals living in a house. According to prior testimony, they are under 24-hour supervision so he would like to know who is doing the supervision; if it is a certified licensed individual; are the people on medication; and if there is a person there who is authorized to administer the medication. Regarding the parking impact on the neighborhood, if the Expedition residents would not be allowed automobiles he asked if they would be allowed to have friends and relatives in for visits and perhaps over night, if so, the people would have to arrive somehow and if they were to come in an automobile it would create a tremendous parking problem. Additionally, he is also a member of the Midway Manor Neighborhood Watch and over the past several years they have been making a concerted effort to either make sure or eliminate any drug abuse in the neighborhood. He feels if the CUP is approved, they would have to work even harder to keep the drugs and alcohol out of the neighborhood. Janalee T. Antos, 2116 W. Pacific, Anaheim, CA, stated that she is a part of the Midway Manor Neighborhood Watch and feels the alley behind the proposed property is also their neighborhood. Some of the neighbors could not attend a meeting at 1:30 on a Monday afternoon; however, she counted 110 signatures, including some of the people who could not attend. They once had a Sober Living in the neighborhood on the end of Pacific Street which is now gone, but the problems that they experienced with that are the ones they are concerned about; shopping carts, harassment of the neighbors, and broken liquor bottles in their yards. They have experienced a very bad Sober Living in their neighborhood. She feels the present situation is into and of itself; it is adjacent to the Brookhurst Corridor • and the major cross street is Cerritos Street. The Brookhurst Corridor Redevelopment Plan ends at Ball Road. One of the legal businesses that the City decided not to have in that Brookhurst Corridor Redevelopment was boarding homes. She asked, for example, if Commission would ignore the Sober 06-14-04 Page 3 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Living aspect and decide that up to Ball Road boarding homes would not be a good idea for the area, because there is a constant turnover of people and they never really feel it is a neighborhood. Across from the Expedition House is the unincorporated area of Orange County. She feels that when the crime statistics were looked at it was not necessarily realized to put them together because all of it is County. She is familiar with people from that neighborhood and from church, etc., and one of the things that they have often spoken about is the need not to have community policing. She has spoken at the Orange City Council regarding that subject and knows that the alleys over there were really notorious for drugs. She has lived there for forty years. She finds it embarrassing to have to say on record that where her house is on Pacific Street, three of her neighbors to the right of her, two to the left and three directly in front of her have gone to jail for selling drugs in their neighborhood. It has gotten to the point where the people that were against it have moved away. She has neighbors that she has had strong arguments with where they felt that all drugs should be legalized. She has had to get a restraining order for her Neighborhood Block Captain because she was being harassed by a man who had been arrested for drug use that would frequent their neighborhood. Also, just a few doors down is the railroad tracks that has a vacant lot and for her entire life time (40 years) they have had problems with vagrants there and there have been two fires there in the last year. The unincorporated area has a 6-foot fence in front of most of the property, meaning it is blind to them and there is the alley with a block wall, meaning it is blind to the neighborhood. The residents of the Expedition House are not allowed to leave the property; they have a paved back yard for parking and they have nine bedrooms, which would mean the residents are getting stir crazyjust wanting to be outside. That would leave the front yard and you would basically have people walking on the sidewalk in front of possibly 50 men loitering there. It was mentioned that there had been a 52% drop in crime but that has been to the efforts of the neighborhood. Although it is embarrassing for her to say on record, the police have been on her street (Pacific Street) four times this month. She finally convinced her neighbor to get a restraining order against a person that, because of their drug and alcohol use, had become abusive and vandalized their property. When she left to come to today's meeting she was distraught to have to leave her father, who she moved back home to take care of, because there was a police car in her neighborhood. So the first thing she plans to do when she gets home is find out why. • She knows the history of her neighborhood and states it has been very much inundated with drug use. Many people have just given up and felt that all drugs should be legalized. The people of the neighborhood are not the people to police them. If she wanted to promote drug and alcohol abstinence her neighborhood would be one of her last choices. The proposed project is on Brookhurst Street where there are 50 liquor licenses adjacent to a neighborhood that has just been overcome by drug and alcohol abuse. Judy Johnston, 2114 W. Cris Ave., Anaheim, CA, stated that their neighborhood has suffered. At one time the neighbors were finding 20 to 50 syringes a day in the bushes; and children were coming across the street from Loara High School to buy drugs in their neighborhood. Their street had two drug dealing houses plus a homeless drug guy that she got a restraining order on that was doing drug deals up and down the street. They thought they were hiding and they used to do drop-offs and turnarounds in front of her house but they have street captains and are totally organized inside the neighborhood. West Anaheim Community Policing has helped to turn their neighborhood around, but in the meantime they also had a Sober Living Home that popped up in the middle of the neighborhood and that has been an extreme stress on the neighborhood. They looked like they were running prostitution. Even though the Federal Law defines it as family she feels they are not families and from her experience they do not operate as a family. In the neighborhood there has been violence with two attempted knifings on children - one four year old and one 11 year old; they have had robberies, etc. Children in the neighborhood have had to grow up around drugs and some of them succumbed and became dealers. Currently, they have a new generation of children growing up and she has made it her goal not to have any drugs in their neighborhood. She lost both of her brothers to drugs and knows what thaYs like and does not want it happening to other children. They have put five years of concerted effort into cleaning up their neighborhood and it has been a lot of work. So she feels it is not fair when the Expedition House takes credit for what their neighborhood has done. She pointed out that they only had 10 days of notification and very little time to get people to take time off from work to come and speak and in that time she gathered 110 signatures and that was with a lot of people not home. She stated that there were points on • the petition that she would like to make the public aware of: To be incompliance with Federal Law there could be no more than 6 people in a home. The Sober Living Home has 15 people living in their home. 06-14-04 Page 4 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • She discovered from a psychologist that less than 10% of people in these type homes ever recover. That would mean out of 10 people in the Sober Living home, 9 of them would fall out. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares clarified that the application was a request for a residential group care facility and was not certain if Ms. Johnston was referring to the Sober Living Home. Ms. Johnston stated no, the statistics were for treatment facilities in that 9 out of 10 would fall out and there would be less than 10% recovery rate unless they were of a faith based group. Also she has spoken with people who have tracked their cities with the subject type of facility and discovered that 40- 50% of the people had never worked, and the rest made their living with prostitution, drug dealing and theft. Within the last week they have had two thefts and two cars burglarized. She stated that it had been reported that there was no crime in their alley but knew from experience that the Hispanic population would not call for police protection and she believes they are probably afraid from what has happened in their country and the way that the police treated them. To say that there is "no police reporY' is an accurate statement. Secondly, it was an erroneous statement to say that nobody had ever complained at the front door of the applicant because a woman had her car hit and went to the door, asked for the person who owned the car that hit her and was told "tough arrest me" and then he left. A woman living on Brookhurst Street complained that they park in back of her driveway and when she approached the door they have slammed the door in her face. Additionally, there were three fires in the alley being set by a little boy and she caught him the last time. It is being stated that there is not a traffic problem. The new Mayor has rescinded the law that there could not be more than five bedrooms without a three car garage but there is a home on the corner that has six bedrooms and is going to be housing two families. Already they are parking onto the lawn and they are spilling into the alley. Then there are the visitors from the Expedition House, sleeping in the alley in their cars. She wonders if there is ever a fire, how firemen would get back there. The street sweeping service is already inhibited and only gets to sweep once a month because cars block the alley. • She asked why the notification went out that it was alcohol rehab when it is actually alcohol and substance abuse. Also she wondered why the police report was only from the period of January 2004 through May of 2004 when they have had problems with the Expedition House for a long time. The Probation Department has had raids on the home, but that information has not been shared and so no one has gotten the compiete picture. She asked what kind of care would the Sober Living Home residents get, who would escort them, and who would monitor the homes, because the people of the neighborhood liked to come home and rest in the evenings and did not want to be the Probation Department, or have to call the Police and Code Enforcement everyday and constantly watch and check for license numbers. That is not their idea of a neighborhood. She feels it would be confining to be 1 of 13 men in a house where there was no back yard and no front yard and not be able to leave. Since the neighbors already pointed out that they are loitering in the alley, they loiter in the front, they stare in their houses, etc., she does not believe that everything would be all rosy with the new Sober Living Home because one of the people in their neighborhood went to a Sober Living Home and the residenYs manager was dealing. She feels if a home is in a neighborhood, and they are doing a good job, the neighbors would not know they were there. But they know that they are there. If the Planning Commission were to ask the residents who lived there, they would say 100% that it is not a good idea for their neighborhood and do not believe that Planning Commission would think that it was a good idea for their neighborhood either. - Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), 604 Scott Lane, stated that she has worked with the neighborhood for the last couple of years and knows that they have gone through a lot. She read a letter from Heather Boley, 1620 Brookhurst Street, the neighbor who lived next door to the subject property who was unable to attend due to having pre-op done for surgery. The letter read that she has lived at 1620 S. Brookhurst Street since April of 1977. Living there has always been a positive experience until the last several years. She has never had a negative experience with neighbors or ever felt at risk until recent events caused by the addition of the so called Sober Living House has ~ become her neighbor. Following is a list of some of the events that happened to make her feel the way she does: 06-14-04 Page 5 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • ^ Approached by residents at 1610 Brookhurst Street and asked to give them a ride as she was attempting to leave her residence with her daughter in the car. ^ Approached by residents or visitors of 1610 Brookhurst Street and asked for gas money and a ride to the gas station. ^ Men gathered in the rear alley for hours. ^ Men pacing back and forth down the alley and looking in her backyard. ^ Men walking into her backyard looking for the Sober Living House. ^ Returning home from work with her daughter and seeing the alley used as a toilet and a man taking a pee in plain view. ^ Had to install an enclosure around her front door to prevent an ongoing disturbance of people coming to her front door looking for the Clean & Sober Living residence. ^ Cars belonging to 1610 Brookhurst Street visitors and residents blocking the alley. ^ Ongoing and constant blocking of garages and alley access. ^ Police have been called and tickets have been given, but it is a constant problem. ^ Police have never given her a report and on a few occasions have not given tickets, but have just given verbal warnings after going to 1610 Brookhurst Street and telling them to remove their cars. • ^ She has gone and requested that they remove their cars and have had the door slammed in her face and not until she told them that she was calling the police were there any attempts of them to move the cars. ^ People who frequent 1610 Brookhurst Street sleeping in cars in the alley. It is very frightening to know that her child's room is only feet away from someone that has been sleeping in their car in the rear alley of her home. When she asked the police to do something about the cars and people sleeping in them in the alley their response was that she should knock on doors and find out whose cars they were. ^ Not feeling safe when she leaves for work after seeing someone waking up from their car in the rear of her home. She fears the person sees her leaving for work and thus knows her home is not occupied by anyone. ^ She now works part time as a school teacher in Orange, CA., because she is so fearful of her teenage daughter walking past 1610 Brookhurst Street past a group of inen that do not seem to be supervised or employed but just hanging out. ^ Her neighbors at 1616 Brookhurst Street had their car and house robbed. ^ Her neighbor's son had his vacation luggage, DVD, radio and video-cam stolen from his car. They have since put up security. ^ She also had to put up security in the front and back of her house at 1620 Brookhurst Street. ^ She has attempted to find out who runs the Sober Living program and is met with blank stares or promises that things will be taken care of. • 06-14-04 Page 6 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • ^ She has taken the summer off and intends to make it a major quest to call the police as often as needed, seek a legal council, contact Code Enforcement and do whatever is necessary at this point to secure the safest environment she can for her family. ^ She asked, if they cannot manage their property now, how they would manage if they obtained a license. Ms. Wallace stated that it was mentioned that the crime was 52% below last year but she had never in the nine years of coming to Planning Commission on items regarding West Anaheim, known a figure being given. So she asked if it was 52% below last year what the rate was last year and what is the real crime rate there. They had a study made by a County Commissioner to find out how much crime there was in the County Island area and the answer was that crime was worst in that area than in any other County area in Orange County. She feels that the proposed project is a business. They are charging $500 a month for people to reside in the Expedition House and did not have a CUP to have people in a Sober Living Home when they first got started on the project. Additions were made, and there were not any permits pulled but somehow they got grandfathered in later. They also cemented in the backyard without a permit and now that has been grandfathered in too. She believes it is a bad precedence that people are a-lowed to do things prior to getting a permit. Now front yards are being cemented in the West Anaheim area for parking lots and they do not want to see this happening any more. The Expedition House has not been a good neighbor so how can the neighborhood trust him to be once he receives a license for a Sober Living Home. They received 110 names out of 100 homes and some people were not at home. So that pretty much says that the whole neighborhood is against the site because of the problems they have had in the past and she feels it has been horrendous. Thank you. Sam Haugth stated that he lives directly behind 1610 Brookhurst Street and every morning he has to pick up beer bottles and beer cans from his backyard. The alleyway between their homes and Brookhurst Street is atrocious and they have fought for years to clean it up. The City and Police Department have • been quite cooperative in lighting the property to keep the drug use out of the alleyway. There is a second generation of children in the neighborhood and he has three children himself and is afraid to let them out in the evenings to play in the pool because they constantly hear arguing, cans being kicked and beer bottles being thrown over the fence. Twice he has had his brick wall torn down by drunk drivers. They have worked really hard to clean up the neighborhood and aesthetically it is improving but no one speaks up for the children. They do not need another drug house in the neighborhood. They have gotten rid of two of them atong with the people who sell and buy the drugs. On one Friday night they counted 87 cars traveling back and forth to the drug house from 5 o'clock on Friday afternoon to 2 o'clock in the morning buying drugs. They do not need anymore. Sharon McCracken stated that she could see both sides of the issues; the need to have a Sober Living Home and the citizens concern not to have a Sober Living Home in the neighborhood. To illustrate how it could work for both she gave an example of teachers and parents working together to create a successful student. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Chiavatti stated that there are a lot of assumptions and parts of it are confusing to him. The track of 100 cars coming up to a household and buying and selling drugs is on a different street. The fires are being lit by children not his tenants. Regarding a block wall being torn down, he feels if one of his tenants had torn a block wall down he would have gotten a notice from the Small Claims Court or someone but nothing like that has ever happened. No one has ever contacted him to say that they had a problem. In that area the houses were 50 years old and the fences were short, less than 6 feet, and easy to look over. So even if just walking past the house you would be looking over a fence. The drug problems and trafficking being mentioned took place on Pearl Street and did not refer to the Expedition House. The people might be confused about the present use that if they did not obtain a CUP they would stay there • with 15 people being able to come and go as they pleased although they were being managed and drug tested and if tested positive asked to move. Nobody had ever come to them with any problems and were now showing up and stating problems. It seemed that the majority of the problems were from somewhere else. The Police Department had never said there was a drug or alcohol problem at the property. The 06-14-04 Page 7 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • people talked about cars being parked in the alley but he had never gotten a citation. He obtained a list from Code Enforcement of everything that had happened since 2001 and the only problem that he had is that they received permits, legally, 7 years ago, to construct a fence across the back to make five open parking spots. The City did an investigation in the Sober Living Homes to make sure they were up to Code and the only violation they had is that they wanted them moved from their original position and changed to where they only had two outdoor parking spots. So that made three extra spaces where people would have to go down to Harrell Street and park, but they have not allowed their tenants to park in the alley and Code Enforcement has not cited them for anything like that. Regarding urinating in the alley; they have four bathrooms so he asked why any tenant would urinate outside. He asked if someone were s{eeping in a car in the alley why that would reflect on him. He feels if there were a problem people could look in the records or go to the City and the City would tell them who he was and they could come and speak to him regarding the problems, but within the 6'/2 years they have been there it never happened. If there are drugs and alcohol in the people's neighborhood it is not the Expedition House and when they convert into the Sober Living House, it would turn into a place where people could not leave. But even in the existing property there are 19 rules that everybody must agree to, including voluntary drug testing, they can work on their cars for 20 minutes a week but cannot just start hammering away on their cars in the middle of the night and there cannot be any loud music, etc. It was mentioned that there was a raid on their property but if that happened there would be some kind of a report. Code Enforcement has done a thorough job of everything. When he bought the property he discovered that the garage was chained shut from the inside because there was so much trouble in the alley. When they moved in, 50% of the problems in that alley stopped because whatever reason it just happens when they show up. He does not feel the people understand exactly what the CUP would do. The problems mentioned are not theirs but if they were, the majority of them would go away because the people would be supervised by doctors and certified counselors. They are going to go from 15 people with cars to 13 people without • cars. The only cars that would be there would be the counselors and maybe somebody coming and going. Regarding visitation, they are going to stagger the visitations and there would only be two visitors at any one time and they have ample parking for that. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares referred to one of the complaints made by a person from the neighborhood where there were individuals knocking on their doors trying to find the location of the Expedition House. Also he asked Mr. Chiavatti if someone was to knock on the door of 1610 woufd there be any chance that the person could tafk to him or would the person end up talking to a resident who could conceivably not pass the information along to him. Mr. Chiavatti responded that their manager was there almost all of the time and any complaint would have gotten back to them. They hold monthly meetings with every manager so there is communication all of the time. If someone knocked on a door because he could not read an address and were a bill collector, he could not see how that would go against him. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated his questions were geared towards environmental issues, issues of peace and expectations of a residential area. Commissioner Buffa stated that on a previous application from one of his organizations and again today one of the concerns expressed by the neighbors was that there is no outdoor gathering area for the residents. So she referred to the plot plan where there is an open area on the north side of the house and asked what the area was used for. Mr. Chiavatti responded that it was a large patio area with one tabie but if they were to receive the CUP they could add a couple more tables, as space permitted. • Commissioner Buffa stated that if it were a licensed counseling facility, once the residents were there they would be there until they were released and left the premises for good; there would be no in and out 06-14-04 Page 8 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • privileges; and residents would not drive themselves off every morning and back in at their discretion so the impact on the neighbors would be significantly improved above what it currently is. Mr. Chiavatti responded that they believed that also. Commissioner Flores asked if he had some of the staff living there. Mr. Chiavatti responded they do not live there because it is a 24-hour facility. They would have a counselor come in for the morning and a counselor come in for the evening and a night person would come in to make sure everybody stayed there and that there was no movement of people. Although they had an in-house manager he did not have to be on site at all times. One of the 19 points is that the residents must either have a job or be looking for a job. If someone was just hanging around and did not appear interested in getting a job then he would ask him to leave because it would not be fair to have everyone else working while others were bumming around. Commissioner Flores suggested that Mr. Chiavatti get together with the people of the neighborhood so that they were informed of what was going on and would feel comfortable with their surroundings. ' Mr. Chiavatti responded that they also agreed to do the same thing when they submitted their application for the previous request. They met with Mr. Garcia of the neighborhood, worked with the community and alleviated their fears and agreed to have a meeting every three months. Also, on Pearl Street they offered to go up and down the street and help elderly people who could not cut their grass or paint their house, etc., because his tenants had the energy to do so. Commissioner Flores asked if they had been meeting every 3 months. Mr. Chiavatti responded they had just gotten started and their public relations representative, Mr. Moore, • would be meeting with the community within a week. Commissioner Flores stated that hearing from the community, it seemed he had not been meeting because they were present in large numbers and were afraid. Mr. Chiavatti responded they had not met on this property because no one had notified him that there was a problem, although one time he received a letter undated and unsigned making it difficult to respond to. Commissioner Bostwick referred to staff and asked if there were building permits for all of the construction. Mr. McCafferty responded there were building permits issued. Commissioner Bostwick asked if all of the bedrooms were included in the permit at the time of the construction or if they were added later. Mr. McCafferty responded that they were added later as an expansion to the existing residence. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the project met the standard for lot coverage or if it exceeded the standards. Mr. McCafferty responded any excess would have required a variance before the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bostwick stated if there are 7 or more residents it is a residential care facility, as defined in the staff report dated June 14, 2004, and he asked if the applicant required a CUP due to having 15 • residents. 06-14-04 Page 9 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty responded that the project was not under the definition of City Code or State Code but was a Sober Living Home and the City did not regulate Sober Living Homes. However, once they had onsite counseling or their care became a residential care facility, it would require a CUP if there were more than 6 residents on the premises. If it were 6 residents or less it would require a State license but not a CUP. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify that as a Sober Living there could conceivably be 15 bedrooms, and possibly 30 people and whether or not it mattered what number of people they had. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that recovering alcoholics and addicts are considered disabled for purposes of the ADA (Alcohol & Drug Abuse Services-County of Orange) and State Law so that the City would need to make reasonable accommodations in assisting those type facilities. State Law states that in a single-family home you could have a Sober Living Home for 6 or fewer persons, not 15 persons, and that those needed to be treated as a residential use. If they are tenants, it might fall into the definition of a boarding house which would also require a CUP. The State Law indicates that the definition does not apply to an apartment; there could not be a 10-unit apartment with 6 or fewer in each one of the 10 apartments and have it still fall under that limitation within the law. However, with the subject application, there is a requirement for reasonable accommodation. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify that if in a 9 bedroom house there were 2 persons per bedroom there would be 18 people. Could 18 people be accommodated as a family in a single-family residence when paying a rooming fee? Ms. Mann responded that there is no clear definition of what reasonable accommodation is with regard to the ADA. What the Planning Commission would be doing in reasonably accommodating is seeking to strike a balance between the concerns of the neighborhood and the needs of a Sober Living facility in terms of what conditions of approval it imposed on the facility. Commission would not be required to • accommodate two people per bedroom. Commissioner Buffa asked if someone had a Sober Living facility with more than 6 residents, would he need a CUP in Anaheim. Ms. Mann responded that the other factor that slips in is the definition of family under the State law. Persons could live together as a family, not a matter of a blood relationship, in a single-family residence without regulations. So because of the type of use and what the arrangements were, the subject project might fall into another definition in the City Code which is for a boarding house. And that would require a CUP. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares wished to clarify that by virtue of paying rent, perhaps $500 a month that would wipe out the possibility of a family definition. Ms. Mann responded not necessarily because there could be a family that would charge an adult child rent as welL Mr. Chiavatti stated that another big issue was the food; if they were to supply food and cook it for their tenants that would fall into the category of a residential care facility. But since the tenants bought and cooked their own food that put them back in the category of ADA which had no regulation of how many people they could put into the house. He added that it was a very well run property. The house was approved by the Orange County Sheriff's Departmer~t on 28 check points, and in 2001 the City Departments went through the house and the only thing they found was that the fence needed to be moved. Commissioner O'Connell asked Mr. Chiavatti that if given the CUP would the approximately 15 residents be lowered to 13 residents by law. • Mr. Chiavatti stated maximum by law. 06-14-04 Page 10 of 13 J U N E 14, 2004 PLANNIIVG COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Commissioner O'Connell wished to clarify that they would be confined to the facility. Mr. Chiavatti responded they would leave for doctor's appointments, etc., and that if they were to leave they would be escorted by the company van. Commissioner O'Connell concurred with Commissioner Buffa that it seemed like a better situation for the neighborhood, especially since the population woufd be lowered to 13 people and they would be supervised. Commissioner Eastman concurred that it would improve things and asked that they work togethsr in the interest of having a better neighborhood. Mr. Chiavatti stated he welcomed it and has never had a problem before. He asked if he could get a copy of the comment cards which would contain the neighborhood citizens names and addresses so that he could write everyone a letter to initiate a meeting. Commissioner Bostwick stated that 13 people in one house was an unbelievable number. It would change the entire tenure of the neighborhood and change the house to a boardinghouse and would not fit in with the community. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated that on May 17, 2004, when Commission reviewed the applicanYs prior proposal he opposed it because it was situated in the neighborhood and he was concerned by the intensity rather than the use and felt it would be more appropriate on any street that had major arterial highways. He feels however, that since the proposed project is on Brookhurst Street, which is a major street that it meets his interest in terms of location. Commissioner Flores stated there is a need for Sober Living Homes and the residents needed a sense of • being that if everything went well with them they would be able to go back to their own neighborhood. On the other hand there had been problems with the Sober Living Home and the citizens of the neighborhood were concerned and needed to be assured that the facility would work better for them. Mr. Chiavatii stated that people are screened when they come to them asking for help from drug and alcohol abuse. They are not just people taken off the street. They have to be willing to get along with the group that is in the house, and they have to be willing to try and clean themselves up and get back with their families. The Expedition House has been there for 6 years and he felt it was better business to evolve into a Sober Living Home because the situation they would be in under a rehabilitation facility compared to a Sober Living Home would be better for the neighborhood. They have worked with doctors and with organizations in Orange County of all different types; some of them rehabilitation hospitals, some of them Sober Homes, and they have gone to great extent to work with the community. He assured they would write a letter to set up a meeting with the neighborhood and welcomed walk-throughs to see the house and residents. Mr. McCafferty stated staff was not an advocate for these type facilities but understood the need for them and that staff evaluated the facilities based strictly on the letter of operation, the permit provided and in most cases the floor plan presented. He feels that since there are nine bedrooms if the project was offered as a single-family home the physical impacts to the surrounding residences would be more because there potentially would be more people driving. And the way the subject project is conditioned there would not be anyone driving except for the resident managers. So based on how they intended to operate and how it was conditioned is the basis for staff's recommendation. Ms. Mann referred to the discussion regarding boardinghouse and wished to clarify that the definition of boardinghouse did include meals, and if the applicants were not including meals in their existing operatian they would not fall within the definition of a boardinghouse. • Commissioner Eastman suggested a continuance to allow the neighbors and Mr. Chiavatti to meet and have some dialogue and a level of comfort for the neighbors. 06-14-04 Page 11 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Mr. Chiavatti responded that he did not have a problem with her suggestion and did not want everyone upset. Commissioner Eastman stated that she hoped the people of the neighborhood would be open to learning more and trying to work together for the good of everyone. Commissioner O'Connell stated that the applicant had shown in the past that he was willing to talk to the citizens. He did not concur with a continuance. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated that there was an appeal process through the City Council. DURING 7HE ACTION. Commissioner Flores asked if a time limitation could be placed on the conditions of approval. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares responded that since Commissioner O'Connell was the origin of the motion it would be his decision as to whether to include a time limitation in his resolution. Commissioner O'Connell responded he would leave the conditions of approval as they were. Commissioner Romero stated that he spoke with Mr. Chiavatti on May 17, 2004, when he presented another Expedition House project, and he toured other facilities and found the facilities to be run very well. Also he found that the applicant was willing to speak with the community and work together as a team. Ms. Johnston stated that she turned in 42 signatures prior to the meeting and asked that they be added to the current submittal. • Ms. Antos referred to Ms. Mann, and stated that it is her understanding that in a redevelopment area HUD finds it allowable to limit the amount of Sober Living Homes because where there is concentration it is called "ghettolization". On Brookhurst Street because of the way it was structured there were homes of a different floor plan than the adjacent neighborhood that back to alleys so they have lined Brookhurst Street for a redevelopment area. She feels that the City needs to put the same reasoning behind not wanting boarding homes as it did when they decided not to put boarding homes in the Redevelopment Area on Brookhurst Street, and put some thought as to how many Sober Living Homes they would have in an area. As to the elderly person being assisted in the neighborhood, the lady is blind and has repeatedly objected to the applicants trying to buy her home so they have repeatedly tried to buy her next door neighbor's home. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated that a legal staff was on hand to provide assistance in understanding the law but did not necessarily represent a channel for which to address concerns. The City Council is the policy making body in the City of Anaheim and while these proceedings are forwarded to them for their review it was unlikely that it could be presented to the City Attorney's Office as a means to change the policy. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. A letter of opposition with 77 signatures was received at today's meeting. A letter of opposition was received at today's meeting (read into the record). A letter of opposition with 43 signatures was received prior to today's meeting. • IN SUPPORT: A person spoke in favor of the subject request. IN GENERAL: A person spoke with issues unrelated to the subject request. 06-14-04 Page 12 of 13 JUNE 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAfLED MINUTES ~ ACTION: Commissioner O'Connell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. VOTE: 7-0 Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04854 (to permit a residential group care facility with on-site counseling for up to thirteen (13) residents recovering from alcohol and/or chemical dependency); and adoption of the resolution attached to the staff report dated June 14, 2004, including the findings and conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-2 (Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares and Commissioner Bostwick voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 22 minutes (3:11-4:33) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:35 P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004 AT 11:00 A.M. ~ C ~ FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ Pat Chan er, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on '7 ~~ t,. , 2004. 06-14-04 Page 13 of 13