Loading...
2009 - January 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 5, 2009 1 of31 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange January 5, 2009 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker Commissioner Imboden STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:30 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: None New Hearings: Item #1, Tustin Meadows Nursery. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the nursery had been operating un-permitted elsewhere? Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated they had been at the same location permitted as a wholesale business. In 1990 the code changed and the business began to operate as a retail business along with continuance of the wholesale business. It became an issue when the business began to operate as a retail business. Item #2, Step Up Recovery. Commissioner Whitaker stated he would have questions. Commissioner Merino stated he would have questions. Chair Steiner stated the record contained reference to a colleague of his and he would make it clear during the public session that he had no information regarding the nature of any of the conversations that took place and that his office was not involved in any of the discussions. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz stated that there had been an issue that had surfaced regarding an error in the reports that had been distributed. He had contacted the City's Administrative Staff to ascertain, based on the error, if the item would go forward or if there needed to be a continuance. Subsequent to those phone calls, Mr. Garcia had sent out an email to residents making them aware that the item had a probability of being continued. Later in the day it had become clear that the item was salvageable and the item would go forward as scheduled. He had taken a call from an irate citizen regarding the inconsistency in whether the item would be presented at the PC Meeting. It became clear that Staff had the ability to recommend a continuance but they could not determine Page 1 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 2 of 31 a continuance, and that had become a looming issue. Chair Steiner asked if the applicant would be present for the hearing? Mr. Sheatz stated that he was not aware if the applicant would be present as Staff had not heard from the applicant. Commissioner Whitaker stated the lawyer for the applicant was a DC Lawyer, well known in the area. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated he would be providing the project summary that had been written by Mr. Sheatz, who would be available for further input. Commissioner Merino stated he was aware that some residents had filed a petition and asked if there was an existing CUP for the property and why was a variance necessary? Mr. Sheatz stated the variance referred to code sections that addressed a single family residence, and in the case of the item before them it was a residence that serviced disabled adults. Commissioner Merino asked for clarification on exactly what the applicant was trying to obtain? Mr. Sheatz stated that there was not a CUP available for the type of use the applicant was seeking. They would require a deviation of the code for the type of use they were seeking in a residential zone, and currently there was not a code that would cover that. Currently for the type of use, in a single family residence, the maximum occupancy was 6; the applicant was seeking to double that number to 12 necessitating a variance. Chair Steiner stated the only way for the applicant to obtain their end result was to seek a vanance. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the 6 or fewer was based on the size of the home? Mr. Sheatz stated the resident occupancy followed the State Code for a non-licensed facility for a single family residence. Commissioner Merino asked if a county facility would trigger the same issues or were there other provisions for that type of facility? Mr. Sheatz stated no there were no special provisions. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the home was for recovery only and for activities such as eating and sleeping, where a house manager had no policing authority? Mr. Sheatz stated he was not aware of the specific arrangements. They had requested that information from the applicant several times and had not received that information. Page 2 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 3 of 31 Chair Steiner stated they had several options in their decision making process; they could deny the application, bring the item back with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, grant approval or continue the item. Mr. Sheatz stated they would have options based on the environmental analysis. The application could be granted as written, granted with modifications or denial of the application. The application could be granted as written with the environmental determination and acceptance of the single family use without further documentation or granting of the variance with modifications necessary and a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The application would come back with an actual resolution. Mr. Knight stated if denied, the item would come back as a consent item. Mr. Sheatz stated the Commission would articulate their reasoning without the requirement of crafting a document from the dais. Commissioner Merino asked if the applicant was not present what would be the outcome? Mr. Sheatz stated the Commission would go through the hearing process without the applicant present and take public testimony. A record would be built on that information. Chair Steiner stated having the applicant be absent would not preclude the Commission from acting on the item. Mr. Sheatz stated there had been internet blogs that had recommended that the applicant not be present, with the outcome being continuance or denial. Chair Steiner stated it was the act of invited error to initiate an issue. Commissioner Whitaker stated it was invited error which could conclude in denial and appeal of the application. Mr. Sheatz stated it was a way to exhaust administrative remedies. Commissioner Merino stated he was hearing that the applicant's best defense was to not appear and to appeal the process. Commissioner Cunningham asked if State Law defined drug addiction and alcohol addiction, even if addicted to legal substances, as a disability? Mr. Sheatz stated the definition of disabled could be related to legal substances, such as alcohol, however, there could not be substance abuse during the time one was considered disabled. Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Garcia if he had checked the Council Chambers to ascertain if the applicant was present? Page 3 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 4 of 31 Mr. Garcia stated he was not aware if the applicant had entered the Council Room. Mr. Knight stated the objective for the meeting was to concentrate on the application before them. There was no further discussion on the item. Chair Steiner asked if there was any new or upcoming business to discuss? Mr. Knight stated there was an EIR in the works and a change to the General Plan that should be heard in the spring and the Ridgeline project was slowly crawling along. The expansion to Lutheran High would also be heard in an upcoming meeting. Mr. Garcia stated the Lutheran High application would be heard at the 2/18 PC meeting. Chair Steiner stated that he would be starting the administrative sessions at 6:45 p.m., commencing with the January 19th PC meeting. Administrative session closed at 6:55 p.m. REGULAR SESSION: Chair Steiner stated before he proceeded with the Agenda items he had an inquiry for the applicant on Item No.2, Variance 2195-08, and asked if the applicant was present? Applicant, Daniel Commerford, address on file, was present. Chair Steiner stated the City Attorney wished to speak with him briefly. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None NEW HEARINGS: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2636-07 - TUSTIN MEADOWS NURSERY A proposal to operate a commercial nursery with seasonal sales in a residential zone. LOCATION: 815 S. Esplanade NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) because the project would not expand the use of the operation of the existing nursery. Page 4 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 5 of 31 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 36-08 approving the operation of a commercial nursery in a residential zone. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff, there were none. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to step forward. Applicant, David Rudat, address on file, thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to present a request by Tustin Meadows Nursery and Mr. Joe Grumbles for a request to grant a CUP to operate a commercial nursery in a residential zone. The nursery had been operated in the same location for 27 plus years. He thanked City Staff for their guidance and patience during the process as they had some difficulties and unforeseen events that had slowed the process. He explained that he was representing Mr. Grumbles and Tustin Meadows Nursery in a pro-bono capacity to assist Mr. Grumbles through the process of obtaining a conditional use permit for the small business that had strived and succeeded to be a valuable asset to the community. Mr. Grumbles was philanthropic through his giving to the community. He had run a small business that he wished to continue running. Mr. Rudat stated he understood how important businesses were to the community, large or small, they all contributed. Mr. Grumbles was present, standing next to him, along with neighbors, customers and community associates. They were present to support Mr. Grumbles' request to continue his business that had provided his family's livelihood and a necessary service to the community. To summarize the application, Mr. Grumbles never intended to operate in an unapproved capacity and when it had been brought to his attention he tried to remedy the situation. He had paid his business license fees and taxes faithfully for years and he wished to comply with the City's regulations and policies. They had tried everything to meet the requirements, including the very stringent water quality reports that they had complied with. It was a lot of work to operate a business successfully. Mr. Rudat stated that Mr. Grumbles had done that and was able to give back to the community whenever he had been asked. He never turned down the local High Schools when they asked for plants or shrubs for that green look or for special events, such as graduations. He was very proud of giving back to the community. He introduced Mr. Grumbles to the Commission. Applicant, Joe Grumbles, address on file, stated his hearing was very poor and he had not brought his hearing device. Chair Steiner asked ifhe had anything to add? Mr. Grumbles stated he attempted to make all of his purchases in the City of Orange and he tried to give back to the City. He never turned down a school for anything, loaner plants, free plants, whatever was asked for. He had an occasion 3-4 years ago to donate Page 5 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 60f31 plants to Rancho Santiago School and worked with another nursery to request donations for a large part of the project, up to $5,000 in plant donations. He tried to assist schools whenever they came in. He was given a 30 year plaque from the Tustin School District for helping them. He never turned down anyone that asked for help. He bought all his materials and gas in the City of Orange and he kept Del Taco and 7-Eleven in business, he tried to keep his business in Orange. Mr. Rudat presented signed petitions to the Commissioners. Chair Steiner asked if there were any questions for the applicants? Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Rudat if Mr. Grumbles had read the conditions in the Staff Report and was he willing to accept those conditions? Mr. Rudat stated he had read them and was willing to accept them. Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing. Jim Bloor, address on file, stated he was in favor of the application. Mr. Grumbles had stolen all of his lines. He had been a customer for over 25 years and had known him through the schools and personally. He gave back to the community. In terms of the parking, he had been to the business 7 days of the week during different times and parking was not an issue. Harry Dennison, address on file, stated he lived on the north side of the nursery and his family had lived there since 1988. His family was a big fan of the nursery being behind them. He and his neighbor was the subject of the Code Enforcement call and he appreciated all that had been involved in the preparation of the CUP. His neighbor would elaborate on some things they had discussed with Mr. Grumbles. There were issues with the area that backed to their yards being a bone yard and dealing with some trash, palettes, and overgrown plant material. They wanted to insure that there was a way to enforce the conditions of the CUP, either through code enforcement or some other means. They had not intended to do anything that would cause him to leave. They were certainly well aware that what might replace his business could be a lot worse and that was not their intention. Chair Steiner stated he would be taking notes on questions raised and he would attempt to get an answer regarding code enforcement. Peter DeLijser, address on file, stated he was a resident on the south side of the nursery. He spoke in favor of the CUP. They had lived in that location since 1994, he and his wife had never encountered a problem. There was a bit of overgrowth that was generally taken care of. They were in contact with Mr. Grumbles on a regular basis and when there was something that was encroaching on their property, they would speak to him and he was always very cooperative. He had offered them free plants which they had not taken him up on. He agreed that another business in the location could be a lot worse. Jeff Grumbles, address on file, stated one of the things that his father had not mentioned Page 6 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 7 of 31 he had kept in Orange was him. He was one of Mr. Grumbles, his father's, landscapers. He was here as a character witness. He stated that they would not meet another man like his dad; he had been in the location since 1981 and had been self employed for over 40 years. His father had always been in the nursery business. Traveling within 5-10 square miles in any direction you could not meet someone that was not acquainted with his father, and those people would have something nice to say about him. Unfortunately, during the time the CUP issues arose, his father battled the loss of his wife whom he had been married to for over 50 years. During the time of the application and re-code process he had been almost ready to pack it up and give it away. His father chose to stay home with his wife and run the nursery from his home. Mrs. Grumbles took care of all the bookkeeping, took care of grandkids and everything else she could - she worked more hours than his dad did. Loosing his right hand, but also one half of his brain during the process and having to go through the permit process, without calling it harassment was very difficult. He made it through, and with the passing of his wife, if he had not had a place to wake up and go to everyday he might not be where he was today. His father was a workaholic, he lived in the same home, he owned 3 cars in 40 years and many might have thought that he had a lot of money. The nursery business was a lot like farming - if the money was not put back in, it could not be taken out. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Colleen Kipper, address on file, stated she had been very happy with Mr. Grumbles. They had not had a problem or issue with him. They felt very fortunate that there was a nursery behind them and they wanted to keep it that way. Martin Jordan, address on file, stated he was a contractor. He was a sixth generation farmer in Orange County. Joe Grumbles was one of the best things that had happened to him, to his business, to his friends and other contractors. He was very generous to the community. Mr. Jordan stated he had worked with the Tustin School District in developing gardens and Mr. Grumbles had been very generous in donating to the schools. He would retrieve any plant that anyone was in need of. Mr. Grumbles had a rough year with the loss of his wife. He wanted to support the application. Charles Monson, address on file, stated he lived directly south of Mr. Grumbles' nursery. They shared about 100' of common fence. In 16 years he had been a wonderful neighbor. There had been an overgrowth issue only one time and it took one phone call and the issue had been taken care of in one day. As he lived around the comer from the nursery he drove passed the parking lot he shared with the church on a daily basis, and had never seen more than 10% of that parking lot occupied. Mr. Monson stated if the CUP was not issued he feared that they could be facing something much more unpleasant than anything that Mr. Grumbles would ever do and they would be spending much more time dealing with the City. Art Oswald, address on file, stated he had lived in Orange since 1961 and had known Mr. Grumbles as long as he had been in business. He was in support of the CUP and primarily wanted to vouch for his generosity and wondered if Mr. Grumbles knew what money was, as he had never given him any, however, received thousands of dollars in plants from him. His wife was the district director of Orange County Garden Clubs and Mr. Grumbles had done his part to contribute to their various projects. He had been Page 7 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 8 of 31 retired 24 years and during the first 10 years of retirement he had been in charge of a facility on N. Glassell and he had begun to get plants from the nursery. He also received many plants for a battered women's shelter, he planted Australian Peppermint Willows, which he realized the City of Orange used. He also used them at the Blind Children's Learning Center where he received plants from Mr. Grumbles. One of the projects he was involved in was an Eagle Scout project that also received many plants from Mr. Grumbles which amounted to several hundreds of dollars. He considered Mr. Grumbles a friend and vouched for his integrity and value to the community. Barry Rodieck, address on file, stated he resided and owned a business in the City of Orange. He owned Blue Ribbon Nursery and Plant supplies. Mr. Grumbles and he were in competition and they would have thought he would be present in opposition of the item. He was not. Mr. Grumbles was the guy he sent his customers to when he could not provide the plants they wanted. Mr. Grumbles had more stock than he could ever dream of and he had a vast knowledge of plants. He asked the Commissioners to please let him stay. It was the same as not finding something at Home Depot and going to Arrow Hardware. Kelly Shay, address on file, stated he was the 2nd and only other property that resided on the north property line of the nursery. The issue was maintenance. He had read the CUP and the resolution and had no issues with them except for the fact that there was very little in the way of conditions regarding maintenance. There were no specific guidelines on what was to be maintained. Mr. Dennison had spoken earlier, and he and another neighbor had met with Mr. Grumbles last week to go through a good faith solution. They had arrived at providing as' setback at the back property line to help eliminate any build up of plant materials. They suggested relocating some of the larger specimen trees along the north line to create a green wall. He was requesting that those items be added to the CUP in some form. An item that was not discussed was the abandoned vehicles on the property. Those vehicles had been there for some time and he felt it was a reasonable request to have those vehicles removed from the property and asked that the request be added as a condition to the CUP. Another observation was that there were several box trees that had gone unsold and un-maintained over the years with the results being the trees were permanently planted in the last place they were located. One of those trees had grown to over 50' and had fallen in 2006 due to improper maintenance. The lack of clean up and maintenance of that tree was what had prompted the City's Code Enforcement Officers to act. They also asked that quarterly rotation of the trees be added to the CUP. The requests were reasonable and they were taking Mr. Grumbles' word at face value. The frustration was that the issues on the property should have been taken care of during the course of his business. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Rudat to step forward. The questions that were raised were related to code enforcement and he asked if the applicant had a position on the requests that had been made by the speakers? Mr. Rudat stated the issue regarding the abandoned vehicles should be addressed. Mr. Grumbles had been working on that and he felt the vehicles should be taken off the property. He felt a rotation of the box trees was a bit onerous, as it was a lot of work and effort to move stock around. The trees should be better maintained or it should be made Page 8 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 9 of 31 certain all box trees were moveable or not growing out of their boxes, that was a reasonable request. On the 5' setback he would look to Mr. Grumbles as he had spoken to the neighbors regarding some agreement to that, and he assumed it was a reasonable request. There may be a need for some allowance for smaller stock in the setback area as property was being given up. He wanted to allow Mr. Grumbles to speak to that issue. Mr. Grumbles stated when the neighbors moved in, the fence was set approximately 15' inside where it had existed and had been there for several years. The neighbors had decided it was their property, and whether it was or was not, he had not cared about that. The tree was 6' inside the fence and once it was moved out, it still grew over the fence. When he was called he would trim the tree straight up. It was a Coral tree that grew very rapidly. The Santa Ana winds blew in his direction and there was never any concern that the tree would fall in their direction. He cleaned up their yard, they used his tree. Chair Steiner asked if Mr. Grumbles agreed to the 5' setback? Mr. Grumbles stated he agreed with the 5' setback. Mr. Rudat asked ifhe would accept that as a condition? Mr. Grumbles stated yes. Chair Steiner asked if there were any additional questions for Staff? Commissioner Whitaker stated on Condition No.3, the operator of the nursery shall maintain the nursery in a manner that shall be free from debris, dead vegetation, overgrown vegetation and vermin or other nuisances and asked if that had been added to address the Code Enforcement issue? Mr. Garcia stated yes. Commissioner Whitaker stated in regard to the neighbors' concerns, was that a condition that Staff could use to later ask for a revocation of the CUP if the applicant was not in compliance? Mr. Garcia stated yes. Commissioner Merino stated they had not received the shared parking agreement as part of the Staff Report and he assumed that the summary that identified the arrangement with dates and times are all identified in the parking agreement and that would be a condition in granting the CUP? Mr. Garcia stated that was correct and one of the findings that they were using. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Garcia ifhe had heard the testimony regarding the 5' setback and if it was language he would be able to add at some subsequent point were the project ready to move forward? Page 9 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 10 of 3 1 Mr. Knight stated that could be added. Mr. Garcia asked ifit would be along the north property line? Chair Steiner asked the applicant's representative to discuss that with the applicant and clarify the setback location. Commissioner Merino stated in order to not have the applicant lose property, he suggested that in the 5' setback that there could be plants of a limited size stored in the space if needed and would that be agreeable? Chair Steiner stated he would be inclined to agree with Commissioner Merino if it was not for the applicant's ready agreement with the 5' setback, and asked what was the applicant's feeling on that? Mr. Rudat stated in the spirit of what Mr. Grumbles had tried to accomplish with his neighbors in the 5' zone, he had heard that they had wanted taller trees in the area. To have the property totally vacant and certainly it would require maintenance and allow some small stock to be placed in that area. Mr. Grumbles stated the area was totally clear and that was what the neighbors had asked for. Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or decision. Commissioner Whitaker had visited the property on Saturday and had not noticed any issue with the parking and he felt the conditions were well written. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to adopt PC 36-08, Resolution of the Planning Commission, approving Conditional Use Permit 2636-07, Tustin Meadows Nursery, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA with the conditions contained in the Staff R~port and in adding the Condition of a 5' setback on the north side of the property, with the condition that any abandoned vehicles on the property to be removed. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED (2) VARIANCE 2195-08 - STEP-UP RECOVERY A proposal to exceed the maximum number of persons allowed in an unlicensed recovery home for alcoholics and addicts. LOCATION: 235 S. Craig Drive Page 10 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 11 of 31 NOTE: If the Planning Commission finds that proposed use is a single- family use, then this proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 - Conversion of a small structure) because the use is being changed to another use with only minor alterations being made. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff to draft a resolution consistent with the Planning Commission's findings. Chair Steiner stated he had two disclosures he wanted to make regarding references to a Deputy District Attorney from the Orange County District Attorney's Office that was consulted concerning her opinion with regard to various issues presented by the item. Chair Steiner stated he was a Deputy District Attorney in the Orange County District Attorney's Office. His office had 300 lawyers and he had no contact with the prosecutor who had been consulted on the item and he worked in a different unit. The reference to the misdemeanor had not been initiated by his office and he had no involvement with that misdemeanor prosecution. Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Mr. Knight stated a petition had been received from residents residing in the area of 235 S. Craig that were not in favor of the application. It had been entered into the record. Chair Steiner stated the Commission was in receipt of that petition and he asked the applicant to step forward. Applicant, Daniel Commerford, address on file, stated Mr. Sheatz had provided them with some paperwork that they had not been aware of and had been presented with outside the door. He had contacted their attorney and he had been advised to ask for a postponement to allow the attorney the opportunity to review the material. Prior to asking for the postponement he would like the Commission to hear from Deborah. Applicant, Deborah Parker, address on file, stated she was present as requested by Step Up Recovery's Craft House to speak to the Commission about the regulatory problems inherent and requiring the ordinance. She was the Project Director for the Solutions Expansion Projects and Futures Association, Inc., which was funded by the California Endowment to work on zoning and land use barriers that residential facilities experienced from their local government due to poor advocacy and, therefore, knowledge regarding the issue amongst local government was very poor. She had been asked to testify before an assembly for human services committees to talk about barriers faced by facilities by their local government. With that in mind she could not fathom how a sober living home, which was an independent living facility and provided only a living residence to its Page 11 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 120f31 tenants and provided no treatment, which was generally referred to as care in the statutes, was being considered by the City of Orange as an entitlement program. The sober living residents exist by right under the definition of family. The definition, due to a 1980 California Supreme Court decision, the City of Santa Barbara vs. Adamson, was that no California local government shall pass or enforce regulations that treat unrelated adults who choose to live together as a family as unrelated adults. Ms. Parker stated there were two points she wanted to bring up for the Commission to consider, she had been aware of the law that many were not aware of, she had gone digging and realized that in the Adamson case it involved a large home in Santa Barbara where 12 unrelated adults were living as a family. The 12 was the figure that the Planning Commission was deciding on. Twelve was the very number that had established the precedence in the case about what the definition of a family was. The case was not decided based on fair housing laws, it would have been, had the tenants been persons with disabilities, but it was based on privacy laws. What she found most troubling in the Planning Commission Staff Report on Craft House was the continued misapplication of the California Health and Safety Code provision of the 6 and under law in applying to sober living residences and stating that they could not have more than 6 persons in the home. The State regulation only applied to facilities where treatment or other services existed. Facilities that provide care were mandated to be licensed in the State. When there was no care, than licensure was not an issue, the 6 and under law would not apply to one's residence in which people reside as members of a family, however, that was what the City of Orange was doing. In doing so the City was in non- compliance with their definition of family which was legal. The City of Orange happened to have a legal definition of family. The City was not conforming to its own definition of family and was something advocates and providers in the City would want to address regarding the housing element update which was currently being completed. There were references in the report that referred to the residence as an unlicensed sober living facility and in arriving to the meeting she read a document that stated it was a proposal to exceed the maximum number allowed in an unlicensed recovery home. The City was not sure what it was. It was not a recovery home and there was no such thing as an unlicensed recovery home, if it was a recovery home it would require licensing. That was not what the residence was and the term unlicensed sober living had no place in the statute. It implied that sober living residences should be licensed and to not be licensed was somehow outside the law. The misapplication of State Regulations should cease from being applied by the City to sober living. The Staff Report noted the City had ventured boldly into an intrusion of privacy which was the basis of the Adamson decision by determining that the residents of Craft House were not living as a family. Was the City of Orange going into all homes and examining the refrigerators of all families, something that was quoted in the report. Was the City of Orange checking if all members ate as a family, she could not remember when the last time she and her husband sat down and had a meal together during a week night at a table. Stickies generally appear on items in her refrigerator to eat or not eat food. These were all examples of means to decide if people were not living as a family. Was the City checking into all homes of related and unrelated adults living together to check if they passed the City's test, and if it was done to one family it must be done uniformly to all families. Were they checking on whether families had a healthy family culture, if they Page 12 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 13 of 31 committed incest, battered their children or spouses and many had, and it was not a small percentage. There were families with alcoholics that were creating havoc with their families and neighbors. Residents of sober living would seek out medical services outside the home which many residents do across the country whose homes were not sober living. Residents of sober living might be on probation or parole, which many residents living in the City not residing in a sober living residence might also be on probation or parole. They might swear and be loud at times, and to point it out in the Staff Report implied that sober living residences were the only ones exhibiting that behavior. It was important that local government, Staff and officials should be reminded that sober living residences were about commonly shared human behaviors, such as smoking, swearing or parking problems, and complaints about these behaviors were directed at sober living facilities because neighbors had not liked them living there. Ms. Parker stated political pressure by constitutes was certainly compelling but local residents would need to ask themselves how they would handle complaints about second hand smoke and parking problems, with their own community members not living in sober living and were the standards being applied equally? Sober living residents wanted to be good neighbors and generally were. They had no problems with nuisance abatement as long as it was equally applied and even stepping up fines for that would be acceptable. They were all in tough economic times and there were things that they would not want to consider at the time that might lead to more legal action that was not necessary. Craft House or any other independent housing should never have to go before any body to obtain a use permit and that requiring a variance was not applicable to Craft House or any other sober living facility. To that end, and in reference to the request for postponement until the materials were reviewed, perhaps there could be conversations with Staff to discuss the issue. She worked with local government and community advocates in Southern California and it appeared to be the big surprise. In working with City Planners they realized the applicability of what she had discussed. She felt the Commission should realize the standards had been misapplied and there would be further conversation for further and greater understanding, knowing that the providers and advocates would want to be working with the City on regarding the housing element and removing barriers for persons with disabilities. Commissioner Merino asked Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Sheatz, if he was able to ask questions of Ms. Parker as a representative of the applicant. Mr. Sheatz stated he had heard that she was a representative of the applicant and questions could be directed to her. Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to ensure Ms. Parker was answering his question for the applicant and not based on her own opinion. Mr. Commerford stated he had asked for a continuance to allow his attorney to review the documents that had been missing. Commissioner Whitaker stated his understanding was that the last half of the packet materials that every other page had not made it onto the copier, however, all the elements of the Staff Report and the correspondence between council had made it into the packet. Page 13 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 14 of 3 1 He asked Mr. Sheatz if it was his opinion that that the applicant had all the information necessary to allow the public hearing to move forward? Mr. Sheatz stated he felt the hearing could move forward, based on the information presented and also based on the fact that the packets went out a couple of weeks ago. City Staff had not received a phone call, an e-mail, voice mail, or any type of indication from anyone that had reviewed the packet that there was anything missing that had not allowed them to prepare properly. There had been an exchange of e-mails between attorneys and letters that had made it into the packets. There had never been any indication from anyone whatsoever that they had an inability to be prepared and address the issues that were contained in the packet. Commissioner Whitaker clarified that the mIssmg information was from the Administrative Report and not the Staff Report or any correspondence between attorneys or Staff. Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct. Chair Steiner stated that it was his understanding that all of the items contained in the missing pages were addressed in the Staff Report and in the ensuring council documentation. Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct and had been made available to the applicant. It was also the City Attorney's recollection that he had sent an e-mail copy to the applicant's attorney who had been in Washington D.C. The e-mail copy was a complete copy. Chair Steiner asked if it was correct that records sent via electronic e-mail were assumed to have been received? Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct. Commissioner Merino stated to make it more simple and less lawyerly, the bottom line was that the information contained in the packet was available to the applicant as the packet contained information and correspondence provided by the applicant and included in the record. There were no new records. The packet contained previously submitted documentation. Mr. Sheatz stated that the applicant's information and correspondence had made it into the record, the document that was an every other page record was information the City had submitted to support their position. When the City had asked for additional information, the applicant had not supplied any additional information. City Staff was left with nothing other than documentation to support their position. Those documents that had missing pages were the City's supporting documents. Commissioner Merino stated the point he was attempting to make was that the applicant's contention that perhaps there was new information, a surprise or smoking gun was not the case and it was information that they had sent to the City. Page 14 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 15 of 31 Mr. Sheatz stated it was not information that the applicant had sent to the City. Commissioner Merino stated in his review it was 2nd pages of letters and other correspondences. Mr. Sheatz stated the missing information was documentation the City had provided, such as a mortgage chart provided to determine what a monthly payment would be. There had been two pages and one of those pages had missed the packet. There was also information on sober living facilities to draw comparisons to and pages of that had missed the packet. Commissioner Merino stated those would have been available to the applicant III exercising their due diligence. Mr. Sheatz stated he agreed with that statement and felt that City Staff would have been notified if the applicant had found something to be missing. Applicant, Lisa Parker Meredith, address on file, stated she was with Step Up Recovery and if the electronic file that had been submitted to their attorney was complete, then a continuance was not necessary. She had misunderstood that all the files had not been received. They had not wanted a continuance, however, based on her understanding; if there had been documents that had not been received they would require a continuance. She stated that their HUD attorney had not received anything from the City. Chair Steiner stated to the extent that the request for a continuance had been requested to be withdrawn, he wanted to note for the record if there was a desire by any member of the Planning Commission to continue the item that he would hear that by virtue of a motion. Chair Steiner stated not hearing anything he would continue with the hearing of the item. Commissioner Merino stated the connection between a sober living facility and how that was interpreted as a family and how that could tie into a facility that charged tenants on a week-to-week rental, and asked the applicant how that could be construed as a family when the members ofthe family, so to speak, moved in and out on a weekly basis? Ms. Parker Meredith stated it was the environment and they would not necessarily move out on a weekly basis. Many of the residents had a much longer stay and looking at residences that paid by the week, not many of them would. Commissioner Merino asked if she would be surprised to know that the facility was on a week to week tenant basis? Ms. Parker Meredith stated no, she was not surprised. It was convenient for many of the residents just getting started to pay on a week to week basis. That was an accommodation based on tenant needs; to allow them to pay on a weekly basis and many of them paid an entire month at a time. What made them a family, going back to the Adamson case, was that the people in the sober living facility chose to live together with Page 15 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 16 of 31 other people who were not drinking or using, but also in recovery. They were a support system to each other. She had found it a bit pejorative in the Staff Report to read the reasons that they were not a family. What made it a family was that the residents cared for each other, they went to activities together, they supported each other and that was what a family was. Commissioner Merino stated he understood if someone would not pay their rent on a week to week basis they would get the boot from the family and was that correct? Ms. Parker Meredith stated that would be true in any situation. The only way that non- related people lived together was in some type of a lease arrangement that occurred all the time. She wanted to ask the City if they had gone out and looked at all student housing, or looked at all places that rented to all unrelated adults and had they made the same determinations? Had they just focused on a home for persons with disabilities? Commissioner Merino stated the applicant's attorney represented in their reasoning why 12 was a more beneficial number, rather than 6, and that there was some connection between loneliness and the treatment that the residents were receiving. He asked if there was any evidence that determined a certain number of square feet per person under treatment, was satisfactory and in reaching a higher number of square feet it would become detrimental to treatment? Ms. Parker Meredith stated she wanted to be clear that they were not speaking about treatment. Commissioner Merino stated that information had been provided by the applicant's attorney. Ms. Parker Meredith stated honestly she could not speak to that. On the other side of that there were requirements in treatment facilities, not in sober living facilities, where there were no requirements. There were certain ways of keeping clients engaged and why roommates were encouraged and single rooms were only given to those with long term sobriety. The large rooms were necessary for the support system. She had been in the home and it was a beautiful home and the same size as any other home there. She had been told there were other homes in the area with many people in them. The sober living facility was the only one the City seemed interested in. The City should consider the misapplication of family, it was the law. Commissioner Merino stated he was attempting to ascertain information. Commissioner Cunningham stated Ms. Parker Meredith had spoken about the Adamson decision, and he asked if she would explain what the courts had defined as a family, which could consist of non-related people, and had the court set any numerical cap on what a family consisted of. 50 people could be a family, and his point is that it would stand to reason that at some point there would be a limit otherwise there could be any number of persons crammed into a home based on the Adamson decision. Ms. Parker Meredith stated what the courts had stated that no local government could Page 16 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 17 of 31 define parameters for non-related adults living together differently for those who were related. If a City or County government wanted to limit occupancy, it could be based on number or a definition of family and most used a definition of family. There were so many large families in California and most governments chose to use family as their definition. There were not an unlimited number of people as there were occupancy limits on a State wide level, but there could not be discrimination and they could not be treated differently than a related family. Commissioner Cunningham stated he understood that the City had not gone looking for the home, however, the City responded to complaints from residents. It had been stated that the City was going around checking for anything that was amiss and that was not the case. The City had responded to a complaint and it was an unfair characterization of the City to imply that they had sought out and were persecuting the residents. Ms. Parker Meredith stated under fair housing laws when looking at persons with disabilities, there were civil rights laws. Civil rights laws were a different breed of cat, and the only way to make progress for those protected under that law, was by the people themselves. There was a lot of discrimination. If the home was a home of Muslims or blacks and the neighbors had not wanted a family of blacks or Hispanics living there, they had seen what prejudice could do and it was universal, people were nervous for whatever reason. They had not liked sober living facilities or recovery programs and would rather have people drinking and driving drunk and battering each other - it was a prejudice and local governments needed to respond uniformly. There also needed to be real evidence. Chair Steiner asked that the applicant answer just the questions as they had many people to get through. Ms. Parker Meredith stated they were correct that they could not just cram a bunch of people into a house, it had to be a healthful setting and based on the square footage of the house, when she had gone to fair housing and had asked to be investigated, they had made them go through leaps and bounds. They had double and quadruple the square footage that was required. She wanted to be part of the solution and to work with the City and be a good neighbor. The residents paid a lot of money for their houses. Chair Steiner asked the applicant to stick to answering the questions. He asked if she held a document that needed to be added to the record? Ms. Parker Meredith stated she had paperwork that had gone to Paul Smith at HUD regarding the floor plan and square footage. She stated they were Orange County Sheriff Certified and she was a big advocate of quality control in sober living, she hated bad sober living houses. She had sat on a coalition for 6 years and whatever was available she had been involved with, and she had volunteered to be Sheriff certified and they had paid a County employee to inspect their home. They had received a use permit from the County and she had that documentation. The signs in the house that were referred to in the staff report were signs from C.A.R. which was a State recognized agency. The State had not believed in regulating sober living, however, they recognized C.A.R. and there was an agent that came from Sacramento every year to check the sober living facility. Page 17 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 180f31 They were a member of a sober living network. There were many agencies that inspected their home to ensure they had the correct number of bathrooms, the right amount of space and she was an advocate of that. She had also brought letters from neighbors in support of their program and from clients in the house and clients that had left the house. There was reference to a website and at 721 Walnut they had a State licensed 6 bed treatment facility for men that treated them 24 hours a day. They had 2 sober living homes in the City of Orange, Craft House was one of them, and they had been there since 1999. She was a huge advocate of not providing treatment in sober living environments. The residents paid weekly, and some could only pay week to week, the report stated transient, however, she had known many of the residents for years. Some people would not stay, but they had not wanted the recovery, many stayed for years. Commissioner Whitaker asked with the permitting by the Orange County Sheriff was that for probation purposes? Ms. Parker Meredith stated no. The Orange County Sheriff s Department realized there was a problem with sober living facilities in the county and devised the program to address the problems to develop guidelines. It was not a mandatory requirement. She had no problems with mandates as long as they were reasonable. It was a therapeutic community. She had a body piercing business in Huntington Beach and she left her family each week to work there, she did not have a lot of money. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the referrals they received from the Orange County Sheriffs Department were from convicted individuals, with the referral being part of their sentencing? Ms. Parker Meredith stated no, it was a program to raise the bar for sober living facilities. In volunteering to be part of the program, they would place the facility on the list of approved sober living facilities that went before a judge. Commissioner Whitaker asked if she was aware of the number of residents that were on probation? Ms. Parker Meredith stated there were 3. She stated she had documentation for their review and submitted that to the Commission. The facility had general liability , workers compensation, and a City Business License. Chair Steiner asked if the information she was providing regarding certification, licensing, and other documentation were provided to the City? Ms. Parker Meredith stated there had been a lot of documentation and some of it had been provided. She had noticed it in the report and felt the two attorneys were on opposite sides of the poles. She wanted everyone to communicate and be a part of the solution. Chair Steiner stated he wanted to clarify how much of the information she was providing had already been provided through the applicant's attorney. Page 18 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 19 of 31 Ms. Parker Meredith stated she thought some of the items were provided. Commissioner Merino stated that one of the questions that had been asked was why they needed the other 6 residents? The City had asked for financial data, for specific terms as to the need for additional residents and had it been for therapeutic reasons and that information had not been provided. It was repeatedly asked for and based on the correspondence between the attorneys, it had not been provided and he wanted Ms. Parker Meredith to be aware of that. Ms. Parker Meredith stated that the HUD attorney had required that information and all the data was provided. They lost $46,000.00 last year. Chair Steiner stated he was willing to accept that she was not certain of what documentation had been provided and that she wisely had further documentation to submit. Ms. Parker Meredith stated that HUD had received all of the financial data and apologized for the City not receiving that information. Chair Steiner asked if there was anything further from the applicant. Ms. Parker Meredith asked if the Commissioners wanted to have all the letters that had been provided from the neighbors and clients? Chair Steiner stated he would be happy to accept them into the record. He opened the public hearing session of the meeting. Charles Barlins, address on file, stated he had known Lisa Parker and the house for years now and he had inspected it several times for the Sober Living Coalition. He himself owned 8 sober living facilities in Orange County. It was a fine sober living home and he had sponsored people who had been through their system. He knew people who were unable to pay their fair share of the housing and were allowed to get behind. It was not all about the money and it was about recovery. He could answer some of the questions, the Supreme Court considered non-related groups of people in recovery a family and their attorney, Steve Polin, had argued that before the Supreme Court and it was a well established law and had been upheld. There were fair housing laws that limited the number of people that could occupy a residence and they went by the same rules as anybody else. He lived in Garden Grove and had an Asian family who lived across the street from him, there were two families with children and two sets of grandparents in the home and he guaranteed there were 12 to 13 people living in that home. If that home was in the City of Orange he felt they would not be breaking down the door to see how many people were in that home. There were laws on the books and they abided by the law. He had seen Lisa come up and fight with groups of people regarding overcrowded houses, about good neighbor policies and to make sure that everyone knew the home was for a family of people living in recovery. He could guarantee on Friday and Saturday night hers would be the only home on that street where there would not be a drop of alcohol or narcotics in the house. All the people coming and going from that house would be clean and sober. They could not honestly say that about any other house on the street. Page 19 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 20 of 31 Michael Gaborno, address on file, stated he wanted to clearly state that he had not known historically about the Federal rules, at one point in his life he was diagnosed and dually diagnosed depressed. A majority of his family had passed on from the disease of addiction and he had chosen to search out a better life style and chose Step Up Recovery coming up on 8 years ago. He had not known what a family structure was; he knew that the brothers at his house taught him about love and compassion and the successes that he attributed his life to now were due to the guys that had walked into the facility before him. He was angry, in and out of incarceration and so were his family members and that was his life style. He thought that was the way he would live and die. Through Step Up Recovery he had managed to maintain a long term recovery, he was not a home boy any more but a home owner, happily married and an expectant father. He was a Deputy Building Inspector and a thesis away from a Master's Degree in counseling. If it had not been for that family structure in his life there was no doubt that he would be with his family, not on earth, as most had passed. With due respect to the neighbors and to the Commission he was speaking on behalf of the inner workings, the zoning and court cases he had not known about, he only knew without the home he would be dead or wrapped around some innocent family through drunk driving. Julia Klatke, address on file, stated she lived at that address for approximately 11 years and she was divorced with a son who lived with her about halfthe time. He was 13 years old and in eighth grade. She received a notice about the sober living home behind her; she had no problems with the residents and had the opportunity to meet many of them. She had a letter from her 13 year old son and read: My name is Dyer Klatke and I am 13. I live behind a sober living house; the guys there are nice to me. They don't play music loud and they don't bug us with noise. If anybody is loud and stays up late playing their music it would be the next door neighbors. They have kids who play music really loud all night long. If you think there were too many people living in that home you should see how many people were living across the street from me, we counted one time and there were 14 people. Some of the guys who live in the sober living house are Scott, Chris, Carl, Justin, Todd and Dave and they are always nice to me. Ms. Klatke stated that a family had a head of household and there were rules to be followed in a family and chores and things like that and as far as she knew that went on in the sober living house. She had no problems. When something went wrong in her house and she needed help she could call anyone at the facility or the people next door, they were neighbors. Next door she had neighbors who played music really loud and she had called the police before, they were loud, they drank and threw up and they were her next door neighbors. As their yards backed up to each other she felt the sober living home was blamed for noise and that was not the case. It would be an injustice to not have the home. Kevin Lish, address on file, stated he was present to speak as a former resident. He moved into sober living and that changed his life. When he moved in he was a homeless 18 year old orphan who had no hope or way of life and it wasn't until he had gone to Step Up Recovery that he had found a way to live. They showed him a way to live. In reference to things heard tonight, he had never seen staff kick out anyone for being a week late on rent and they were generous people. If a person was trying and wanting to change their life they were not turned away. He had not a cent in his pocket. As far as a family was concerned, he had lost his family when he was young, and it wasn't until he Page 20 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 21 of 31 moved into the house that he had found a family - it changed his life. He celebrated 7 years of continuous sobriety and it was directly related to the house that was there when he had no hope in himself and he was truly grateful for that. Chris Logan, address on file, stated like Mike stated before he found Step Up Recovery. He had no place to live and he had a family that had not wanted him. Upon finding Step Up Recovery he found a family. He resided at the home for three years and there was a point in time where he could not pay the rent and he was not turned away. He considered the guys his family, be it 12, 15, or 30 they would all be his family. He felt partly that they were being discriminated against. Looking at the people sitting in the chambers they were all of elder age, most of the guys were younger, and maybe they were looked at as young drug addicts. At one point in time they were, but there would not be a car that left the driveway with anyone under the influence of drugs or alcohol and he would assume that at one point or another in all of their lives that drugs and alcohol had taken away a family member. Drugs and alcohol had affected their lives in some way. He felt that the public wanted people to get help; they just had not wanted people to get help in their backyard. He thanked Step Up Recovery for saving his life and along with many people he had resided there for more than a week. He had been there for over 3 years. Karl Matheson, address on file, stated he was 27 and had lived in Anaheim for 25 years and in Orange for 2 years. He first came to Orange to get treatment not associated with Step Up Recovery, then he went to a sober living home where he kept using and abusing himself. He found what he was looking for at Craft House, talking about a family he had found structure, compassion, love and understanding and he was fortunate. On January 8th he would accomplish a year of continuous sobriety and clean time. There were strict rules and curfews and to lose the house; he could not imagine, they were a family. What scared him was that many of the complaints were fear based, it could be a son, grandson, nephew and some were fathers that had found a new way of life at Craft House. The house had changed numerous lives. On behalf of his family and residents that could not be present he thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. Cynthia McCann, address on file, stated on December 22, 2008 my son was in a hospital facility suffering from a deep depression which was the result of several years of drug and alcohol abuse. The reason years had gone by with no treatment was due to financial reasons, treatment was expensive. In her eyes treatment was always for the rich. On December 22, 2008 as her son lie in a hospital bed she asked God for help, she asked help to get him into treatment, knowing his future was grim if she could not get him help. She made a phone call to someone working in a treatment house in Malibu and they could not help, however, she was referred to Step Up Recovery. That was two weeks ago. She spoke to two people, Michael and Lisa, and she explained her financial situation and her story about her 18 year old son who was on the verge of dying from the disease. They gave him a space on a scholarship basis. She could not give them a dime. He was being treated in the six bed facility and as treatment went he would end up in a sober living facility. It was a life saving thing the facility provided. She was sad to see people laughing and snickering on that side as they appeared to not know it was a life or death situation and kids died everyday. She asked for help two weeks ago and the people were helping her son. She saw her son today, he had life in his face and suddenly had interest in taking responsibility for himself and he asked her to take him to sign up at the local Page 21 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 22 of 31 City College and he wanted to take care of himself. That was all new and due to the amazing human beings who had offered help. Sober living was part of recovery; being in an environment that would allow the residents to be productive human beings. The people at the facility were doing amazing work and the residents should be proud to have them in their neighborhood. Grant McNiff, address on file, stated he was the Chairman of the Orange County Sober Living Coalition which was made up of 62 members and part of a sober living network. They were dealing with a disease and people needed a place to go to get well. If they were dying of cancer the whole community would be behind them. When it came to alcohol it had such a horrific stigma. Every family had been touched by the disease, and it was a disease that was worse than a thief. Several years ago he was the Executive Director of the National Council on Alcoholism and they were recipients of a block grant. The judges were attempting to place recipients who had been through the drug program who had been clean for 18 months in a clean, sober living environment. The County of Orange had over 3 million people and there would be problems with that many people, and they needed to provide housing for those people. They could not fall off the ground or they would go right back. That was the last house on the block as there was no place to go after that. It was a very expensive disease and cost taxpayers a lot of money. People in recovery were trying to better themselves, it was mandatory for them to get a job and become productive taxpayers in society. Addiction was addiction the world around, alcohol was the most powerful substance used. There were people who had not seen the situation through his eyes, he had been around it a long time and they needed to do something about it. The problem was the same in Newport Coast as it was in Brea and it was a problem that they needed to work on and to find a solution. He had information on housing and how that applied to persons with disabilities. Alcoholism was treated as a disability as long as one maintained their sobriety. They wanted a dialogue with the City about their housing element update which required all local governments to examine its policy and practices and its constraints on housing for people with disabilities and to remove those constraints. It would begin with eliminating that residents existing under the definition of family not be forced to regulations under entitlement programs. Each local government was to provide reasonable accommodations and not only within a use permit process. It should be written in a form that was available for use by the public and allowed on a case by case business. Justin Miller, address on file, stated he had been born and raised in Orange County, raised in Tustin and went to Tustin High and he had not always been a productive member of the community. He had good years and bad years. He was having a good year due to Step Up Recovery. He had checked himself into the home as he had recently become a father and he needed a place to go. The home was one of the best family environments he had ever been in during his entire life. He had been in other sober living homes that were complete wrecks. The Staff was welcoming as soon as he walked in the door and it had been nothing but extreme pleasure to know these people and they will be a part of his life. The neighborhood was probably one of the safest neighborhoods because of the sober living home. Most of the people in the Council Chambers were his neighbors that he waved to and they waved back. The issue appeared to be property value because of the sober living facility being in the neighborhood. It had to be that. It was a family Page 22 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 23 of31 environment and whether it was 6 or 12 people he considered all twelve of the residents to be his family and they helped him get a foothold on his life that he would not have gained anywhere else. Joe Murphy, address on file, stated he was 29 years old and he had been kicked out of his home when he was 16 and he never knew what a family life was. He grew up in an Irish family, with alcohol and violence. He came into the sober living home 5 years ago and he was celebrating 5 years of sobriety. If he could put a sober living home into every neighborhood he would. His dad was trying to get a sober living home for Irish people. He was a bit nervous. For him the home gave him a family and taught him how to love someone. He was married two years ago and never knew how to hold a woman and at his wedding he had. He would be dead if it had not been for Step Up Recovery. He had a family, brothers, people who could be in his life for the rest of his life. It taught him that being a man wasn't being tough and fighting, it was being open and honest. Sometimes he could not pay his rent and the owners knew that and allowed him to stay. If it wasn't for the house and people in it he would be dead. He had family members who had died from alcoholism and he was the luckiest one because he was alive and was able to experience a life others did not. He was able to fly home. Give the house a chance it had good people in it. They were probably the quietest house on the block. Anthony Santana, address on file, stated he had moved into Step Up Recovery a little over 3 'li years ago. He was lost and empty. He was raised by two addicts and raised in a dysfunctional family. When he arrived he was using and his parents were using. He had not known what a family was. The people at the house loved him until he could love himself and taught him how to make his bed and go to work everyday and be a productive member of society. He was part of the home as a manager and because of what they had done for him he was able to give back and give direction to people and become a part of the family. Having 12 residents was a good thing for him. Many of the people went to work at different times and any time he got home there would be someone there to talk to. If he felt like drinking or using there was always someone home that he could talk to and it was conducive to his recovery. If there were less people, and given the fact that it was a sober living and not a treatment home, people went to work and had lives, with people coming and going and having that many people there made it possible to always have someone there. He now knew what family was because of the home. His mother was in the hospital, she was dying and he was able to be with her today, if he was doing what he was doing before he would not be able to be there. Taking the home out of the community would not allow people like him and his brothers to have a place to go and they would be wreaking havoc in the community. Lucy Anthony, address on file, stated that she had not known the meeting was going to take place until 5 :00 p.m. and they were told the meeting was canceled and many more people would have been present. She felt the variance should be denied as they had not proven they had a hardship and that was the only valid reason for a variance. Once the variance was granted it would be there forever and every sober living home in Orange would want the same opportunity to double their size. Her family was probably the most impacted, as they lived next door. The second hand smoke that permeated their home was incredible and they had to close the windows on the side and back of their house. They could not invite friends over to sit on their patio anymore. Their patio and home Page 23 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 24 of 3 1 was used for social activities that had been greatly reduced. Her children could not come over and use the backyard. The sober living home patio was about 10' to 20' from their backyard and they had commercial weight lifting equipment out there and 3 refrigerators and it was where the residents congregated and smoked. The conversation was a little unruly as they were young men. She was a really old person, and probably had not understood young people; she had children and understood that. Parking was an issue, no one could park out front. They could not even put their garbage cans out. They had seen the neighbors changing their oil on their cars and working on their engines in front of her house. Street sweepers had not issued tickets anymore and they could not get the streets swept because of the cars. They had a neighborhood watch and they looked out for each other, they were all strangers now as there were so many people coming and going from the home. It was a real security issue. Their home value had diminished greatly. They were big houses. They were family oriented people. Who would want to buy a home near addicts and alcoholics - recovering or not? It was just the number of people and it was a business and it should not be allowed in their neighbor of single family residences and that was how it was zoned. They never had 6 people in the home; it had always been a lot more. She had not thought a family unit was defined by number of people. She only had 4 people in her family growing up and they were very supportive; 6, 12, 18,20 how many was enough and she felt the request for a variance was totally unnecessary, Richard Anthony, address on file, stated the issues were pretty straight forward. It was not prejudice on the City of Orange, or they would be patrolling every block in the City. The City investigated complaints. Prejudice was not a concern with him; he came from a family full of drug addicts and alcoholics. He was very familiar with drug addicts and alcoholics and that the recovery rate was quite low. It was admirable that the party next door had people who had recovered and he thought that was great. The issue was not prejudice. He was not sure the issue was family as those words were minced. Someone could say they were a party of one and he was a family if he talked to himself all of the time. The real issue was residency and resident occupancy and capacity. If he was a person who moved into the area in the middle of the night and created a situation that allowed people to come in and out of the home, and if he felt he was not making enough money a three story structure could be built to house more people. It was a residency issue and how many people could live in a structure. There would have been many more people present; however, they had been told the meeting would not take place. The issue was not what kind of work one did, they were not providing medication or doing other things it was primarily a residency. As a residency they were well over capacity. He had seen many people come and go over a period of time, and the reason they came back was that they had not recovered. It was admirable work, but recovery was an over used word and it was a residency issue, plain and simple. The home had never been at 6, which was why they were present to make something legal that they had been doing for many years. There had been 12, or as much as 15 people living there. Keith Burnside, address on file, stated he had not wanted to be redundant. He had been a drug counselor as his occupation. He had read the report and agreed with Dr. Gayles who had seemed to be an expert in the area. He felt 12-13 people was definitely overcrowding, they had to share bathrooms. They were sharing one kitchen, family space and it appeared the living room had been turned into a bedroom. They eliminated living space that had been used by all. He read: Dr. Gayle says that overcrowding and Page 24 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 25 of 31 competition for space created expression of aggression. Overcrowding was motivated for profit by the ownership and he felt that was an issue. He felt the success rate would be poor at best. There was obviously rehabilitation going on and he was not certain what the success rate had been, from experience overall it had been poor. Anne Crouch, address on file, stated she was not opposed to the sober living home on the block but she was opposed to the variance. The owners had been deceptive since day one when they purchased the home and they had not deserved a variance. They were asking for a variance only because they had been caught. There was a sheet covering the window so no one was able to look inside and see who was living in the house. 18 men had been living there at one time and it was like a hotel and not a sober living facility. Men came and went at all hours, their website showed a stringent schedule and that lights were out at 10:30 p.m. Anyone living on the block knew that the lights were not out at 10:30 p.m. She had small children that had to walk by the house everyday and she was a bit nervous about that. She was not opposed to the sober living facility, but was opposed to the variance. She could not see 13 people living at the home. Robert Kolar, address on file, stated he lived directly across from the property they were speaking about and lived there since 1974. He heard a lot of talk from the other side about the need for the facility. He felt there was the need and the issue was whether they would allow the facility to double their size in a facility that was built for one family. There had been renovations and the house had been cut up inside and they had taken a single family home and made it into a hotel. Since the facility went into that location they had seen a number of issues that were pointed out in the report. The owners had not been forthcoming as to what their business was. The City had not learned that there was a sober living facility there until they heard complaints and it would be a mistake to allow them to double their size. Brad Ottoson, address on file, stated most of what he wanted to state had already been said and he wanted to reiterate that he was not opposed to the sober living facility with 6 residents. He was concerned that there were 18 tenants there a year ago and that it was a very deceptive business and they were asking for a variance to continue their deceptive ways. He was opposed to that. Karen Ottoson, address on file, stated they bought their home 24 years ago and thought they were just getting a bigger house and a closer drive to work, but what they got was an amazing wonderful neighborhood. They had wonderful neighbors. Because they knew each other and if there were issues they could just talk to their neighbors. When the house was sold at 235 S. Craig for a rehab house they were sad. There were women there at that time, they were quiet and they did not all have cars. All of a sudden men started living there, many of them coming and going at all times; on foot, by bike, by skateboard and car. They were being picked up and dropped off. In the summer they kept their windows open and she had phoned the manager who told her there was a curfew, which she felt was not being enforced. There was a lot of R rated language, she had not gone to R rated movies. Cigarette butts were thrown into her yard. She had not known who lived there. She was not opposed to recovery programs. She had many alcoholics in her family and she knew the programs worked. Her objection was to the deception that happened. The owners had not communicated to them; they had been sneaky and deceptive. They Page 25 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 26 of 3 1 told tenants not to park right in front of their house. She had a resident park in front of her house that told her he had been told to spread out with the cars. Her son was trying to sell his car and one of the residents had spoken to him and told him at one time there were 18 men living in the sober living home. It was the deception, she had no problem with 6 men living in the home; it was just the lack of communication to the neighbors. She presented a letter from her neighbors at 265 S. Craig which she submitted for the record. Ed Scheibel, address on file, stated he lived 3 doors from the home they were talking about and he had lived in his home for 46 years. He raised a family there. He spoke about families from the standpoint that he had 3 children and 9 grandchildren. They spoke in terms of living in a house with a family. A family had parents and people who knew each other very well; they had the same driver's license with the same address. The sober living home had a door that swung open constantly. The neighbors had no idea who was going in and out of the house. He had at least a bushel basket full of beer cans and bottles that he picked up off of his front yard. Having additional people with the same attributes was a crime to the neighborhood. The homes had gone down tremendously in price. They spoke about the need for the home to produce an income. The owners wanted income. They had income in their homes; they paid for their houses and wanted to pass them onto their children and grandchildren. Giving them an additional 6 people would be a crime and should not be approved. Frank Sciarra, address on file, stated he was an original owner of the home where he lived with his wife, Beverly. There were 30 some odd homes on Craig Drive. Not one of those families had 6 cars in their homes. He knew there were more than 6 people living in the sober living home. Parking was impossible. Cars were all over the place. There were people in the front yard, gathering on the porch, drinking beer and being very boisterous and it was irritating to the people of the neighborhood. Safety was questionable. Adding more people to the home would be a travesty. He extended his apologies to Mr. Sheatz for the remarks he had made earlier. The meeting had been canceled and then it was back on again and that was what his frustration had been about. Jose Velasquez, address on file, stated he lived there since 1979. His objection was the increase in residents, as he had a bit of a problem with the tenants of the sober living house going over his wall, and he had some kids tearing it down. He repaired it. There was no gate and it separated the commercial properties from properties on the cuI de sac, he had no objection to the home being there. To increase the numbers would create more of a burden. Different people were there all the time, with people coming and going. He had gone over to the home and told them if they continued to jump the fence he would report them to the police. Jason McWhirter, address on file, stated he had submitted a letter to Ed Knight which they should have a copy of. The only home improvements that had been done on the sober living house were to accommodate the additional residents. The home had been in distress, it was falling apart and they had done a great job with the remodel. They had not seen any request for any changes or structural permits. The driveway was made for 4 cars, not 10 and there had always been too many people in the home. He had a wife and 3 daughters, it was an all men's home and if he had known that the home existed he Page 26 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 27 of 31 would not have bought a home there. He only found out after he moved in and in speaking to his realtor he was told that they had not needed to disclose that information to him. He had not known if they were causing problems in the neighborhood. He knew what men were like when they got together and that made him uncomfortable and it was a possible issue. If people looking for a home were told there was a recovery home on their street they would not buy there, if he needed to sell his home it would become a problem and property value was a huge issue. Chair Steiner acknowledged that Mr. McWhirter had submitted a card from Rosie Alonzo, address on file, with comments written on the back of the card opposing the application and stated it would be taken into the record. Chair Steiner closed the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to step forward in order to respond to the issues presented during public comment. Mr. Commerford stated he was one of the owners of the home and he had spent over $30,000.00 to remodel the home and he had done everything to be a good neighbor. They had not done anything to the home that required a permit. He felt they were being discriminated against and that people were scared. They had not understood how devastating drug addiction and alcoholism was. He was almost 60 years old and he had not made one dime from Step Up Recovery. He wanted to give back to the community that gave to them. He was a recovering addict that had been clean for 26 years. He had spent 10 years in the penitentiary and to most people his life was thrown away. Many people change, and there had been people at the home who had been willing to reach out and teach him how to live. A gentleman just told me that he never had a problem with alcohol and told me it was will power. He understood that misconception, but alcoholism and drug addiction was a" disease. They wanted to be good neighbors. They wanted 12 residents, as there were residents who had been there long term and what happened to the guy who came in and they had no place to put him. That was why they wanted more beds, to continue to reach out, to offer a place to be clean and sober and help the community; to make the community safer. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission and asked if there were further questions for Staff or the applicants? Commissioner Cunningham stated he had heard one of the residents talk about a curfew and he asked what was actually happening at the sober living home? Ms. Parker Meredith stated there was confusion over treatment and sober living. Their website had a schedule that was for the 721 E. Walnut house which had a curfew and a quiet time. Sober living had a separate schedule that was not posted on the website and she could provide them with that information. The curfew applied to the treatment house. Commissioner Cunningham asked if there was a curfew at the sober living house? Ms. Parker Meredith stated residents had to be home at 11 :00 p.m. but there was not a requirement for lights out. Page 27 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 28 of 31 Commissioner Cunningham asked why the refrigerators were outside? Ms. Parker Meredith stated there was a refrigerator and kitchen table in the kitchen for cooking but with so many guys they needed an extra refrigerator. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the refrigerators were outside because there was not room in the house? Ms. Parker Meredith stated they had remodeled and added a kitchen table in the kitchen and placed the refrigerators on the patio. She had taken photos of the facility and stated anyone could go there. No one had gone there to walk around the house. They had spent $60,000.00 to remodel because there were broken pipes and that had to be fixed. Commissioner Cunningham asked where the figure of 18 tenants had come from? Ms. Parker Meredith stated there were never 18 tenants in the house. Commissioner Cunningham stated that the number was brought up in a conversation that one ofthe residents had with a neighbor. Ms. Parker Meredith stated they never had that many beds. At one time they had 15 beds, during which time they were going through the process with the City, but they never had 18 beds. Commissioner Cunningham stated there was a timeline provided and a notation that a County Certification was being sought. Ms. Parker Meredith stated the O.C. Sheriffs Certification required all the documentation, live scan and asked them to obtain a permit from the City. They had requested that from the City and they were told by the City that those permits were not issued by them. They went back to the County, who sent a County Inspector to the home, which they paid for. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the applicant was present when Code Enforcement Officer Echeverria inspected the home and noted that 15 men were living in the home on February 22, 2007. The officer found a total of 18 beds, which 9 of them were in the family room and she had taken pictures of that. Ms. Parker Meredith stated there were never 18 beds. Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or action. Commissioner Merino stated the issue was fairly simple and it also had emotional aspects to it. The Planning Commission had to make findings on very specific issues within the law. The findings that they were asked to look at granting a variance based on evidence that the tenants were disabled and entitled to the residence. Clearly he had not heard that the residents were not entitled to have a sober living facility and closing the facility was not an issue. What was an issue was whether a variance would be granted to go from 6 to Page 28 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 29 of 31 12. The burden of granting a variance was on the Planning Commission. By not granting the variance it would not disallow the six residents to have a sober living facility. They had asked through the process multiple times for the applicant to provide evidence as to why 12 residents were necessary, rather than the 6 that fell under the law. That information had not been forthcoming, and as emotional as much of the testimony was, he had not heard a convincing argument that a sober living facility that accommodated 6 people well, with a reasonable amount of cars and had no impact on the neighbors was not reasonable. There was no evidence that stated that 12 residents were needed for financial reasons, or that a sober living environment needed 6 more people to make it work, and the bottom line was that if the program would be successful for 12, it was successful for 6. From his perspective, the evidence was on the applicant and that had not been provided. He had not seen the evidence in any of the documents provided or heard any evidence in the testimony. Under the two required findings he could not support the variance. Commissioner Whitaker stated there was no question that the sober living home was allowed by law and that the people there were doing very good work. He felt the question was whether a sober living home fell under the City's definition of a family unit. He had not found any evidence that it was operated under the City's definition of how a family operates. Taking a look at that and ascertaining whether the residents of the home were disabled was accurate under the law. There may be residents who would not fall into that category if they were using substances or under a conviction. The analysis of whether the disability required more accommodations than the law allowed was the question. Six was the accommodation for a licensed treatment home and the analogy needed to be made with that as otherwise the boarding house ordinance would not make sense. The boarding house ordinance stated if there were more than 2 tenancy agreements, the property entered a boarding house arrangement and only happened if there was not a family definition. He could not find a family definition and then he had to take a look under the reasonable disability accommodation. A reasonable accommodation would be to accommodate 6 as a licensed facility would accommodate. There had been no evidence that more than 6 were needed. The evidence from the Administrative Record that was placed through Staffs analysis from experts was that sober living could be detrimental with a larger number of people. He felt the ownership was well intentioned, however, that they had operated with a bit of slight of hand. The statistics were well established that there were 15 people living in the home and that there were 18 beds. A Code Enforcement Officer swore to it - the beds were there. An applicant could not come to the Commission and not tell the truth. He could not find a reason to support the variance request. Commissioner Cunningham stated he agreed with his fellow Commissioners and he had great respect for the 12 steps and the work that was done. He understood the devastation addiction caused and there were not many who had not known a friend or relative that had been addicted or was an alcoholic, however, that was not the issue. It was heart rendering and compelling, but they were not dealing with the work at hand but dealing with the Ordinances. He had not felt the argument that the residents of the sober living facility fell under the definition of a family. He had not disputed the bonds the residents felt, however, under the City's definition of a family they had not fallen under that. He was not opposed to a variance per se, he felt 12 people in the home was not reasonable Page 29 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 30 of 31 and he could not support the variance. Chair Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz if he had any additional input. Mr. Sheatz stated there had been something that had been stated by Ms. Parker Meredith regarding the Adamson case. The similarity that the case was decided with 12 people in the house and the variance before them was to allow 12 people in the home and that was where the similarities of the two ended. The Adamson case was based on the fact that the people living in the home, although not related by marriage or blood, acted as a single housekeeping unit. The court had gone through some very specific actual tests and other cases who had sighted Adamson had also gone through the test. In page 3 of the Staff Report some of that information was laid out, and some of the things that had been verified were that the members were not transient in nature, the members of the family chose who lived there, that there were established ties and that the members interacted together and shared meals. The courts wanted to move away from a situation that encountered 12 people living in a home that created 12 separate trips to the grocery store, and that all members functioned as a single housekeeping unit. That was what the Adamson case was based on. The City had also adopted the same definition in the City's Ordinance which had recently been updated. He was encouraged that Ms. Parker had conceded that the City had a definition of family and he wanted to clear up that issue. Chair Steiner stated he had been a prosecutor for 9 years in Orange County and he had not needed to be reminded of the devastation that drugs and alcohol brought to the community; both to the people who became ensnared by the substances and to their families and innocent victims in the community. He saw it everyday. As part of his job he had to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt and the applicant was not required to prove that, and that was the highest standard of the law. The Commission was effectively a jury that had to be convinced by the applicant that two things were satisfied: (1) That the tenants of the institution of the facility were disabled and entitled to an accommodation, and they were disabled as long as they were not using drugs and 2) The applicant was required to prove that the additional 6, above the accommodation of the code, afforded the ability for the residents to enjoy and use the facility. Assuming the standard of proof and viewing the standard of proof in the light most favorable to the applicant, he was not convinced by the preponderance of the evidence, by clear and convincing evidence, or by any evidence, and particularly in item # 1, but # 2 as well that they had been proven. It was not a question of being moved or impacted by the statements of the people who had been heard from both sides. The Commissioners were impacted. It had to do with the requirements and they had to be convinced by the applicant, and he had not been so convinced and would not be in support of the variance. Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Sheatz if they were required to state all of their facts in a motion or had the debate or discussion amongst the Commissioners, recorded in the record held sufficient to allow Staff to draft a resolution. Page 30 of 31 Pages Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2009 31 of 31 Mr. Sheatz stated the record would be sufficient. Commissioner Whitaker made a motion based on the discussion by all four Commissioners and the evidence presented by the public to deny the application for Variance 2195-08 - Step Up Recovery. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED Mr. Sheatz asked Mr. Knight to read the appeal process to the applicant. Mr. Knight read the appeal process for the record. Chair Steiner stated the appeal rights would be triggered with the adoption of the resolution which would occur on January 19, 2009. There would be no further debate on the issue. (3) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Merino made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, January 19,2009. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Chair Steiner Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None Commissioner Imboden MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:02 P.M. Page 31 of 31 Pages