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