 |
|
|
|
Photograph by Jacqueline Ramseyer
Group Home: This Rainbow Recovery group home, located in Willow Glen at 2990 Kilo Ave., will accommodate up to 10 women and their children in the future after a San Jose Planning Commission vote last week. House tenants are women recovering from substance abuse, and their children.
Planning commission approves small occupancy increases for group homes
Neighbors and home occupants dissatisfied
By Kate Carter
The San Jose Planning Commission decided on Feb. 27 to increase the occupancy at two residential recovery homes, one of which is in Willow Glen. However, the increase was less than was requested by the homes' operator, and it pleased neither the operator nor the neighbors challenging the increase.
Considering hours of testimony by residents near the homes on Kilo and Meridian avenues, as well as testimony by the homes' operator, Rainbow Recovery, and its inhabitants, the commission opted for compromise decisions.
Its final decision on the house located at 6136 Meridian Ave., passing by a 4-2 vote (commission Chairman Jay Ross and Commissioner Jay James opposed the decision, and Commissioner Sharon Godbolt was absent), was to allow it an increase of up to 12 total residents, of which a maximum of seven can be adults and a maximum of five can be licensed drivers. In addition, two of the adults will be residential staff members, and the commission will review the decision in September.
The commission passed, by a 4-2 vote (Ross and Commissioner John Zamora opposed, Godbolt absent), an increase at the 2990 Kilo Ave. house in Willow Glen of up to 10 residents, six of whom can be adults and with a maximum of five licensed drivers. One of the adults will be a residential staff member, and the decision will also be reviewed in September.
The hearings were the last step of appeal the neighbors could make of decisions made by the city's planning department staff and director, which permitted an increase at the Meridian Avenue house of up to 18 total residents and of up to 16 total residents at the Kilo Avenue home. Those numbers were based on the maximum number of people allowed in homes of their size by housing and building codes. The commission's decisions can only be contested through legal action, and Rainbow Recovery representatives and neighbors didn't rule that possibility out.
"It's against the law," said Jeffrey Janoff, attorney for Rainbow Recovery, of the commission's decisions. "It was an arbitrary decision not based on facts, especially not on Kilo. The comments they made are against the law. We have to consider legal action to oppose it. The neighborhood can do the same thing, although I think they came out better than we did."
"I feel the decision was not carefully thought out, with all the evidence that was presented," said neighborhood representative Greg Misakian, adding that he plans to take legal action with the state and make a filing with the state attorney general's office to get the recovery home licensed by the state.
The decision to increase residency in sober living environments for recovering drug and alcohol addicts located in residential areas has become a growing controversy in the last several months. The neighbors surrounding the two homes in question last week have come together with others in neighborhoods elsewhere in San Jose and throughout the Bay Area, done research and established a website detailing their concerns: www.neighborsunite.org. They have also gotten the attention of the San Jose City Council and Mayor Ron Gonzales, who last month held a study session on the issue and directed city staff to review its policies.
Homes located in areas zoned for single-family uses are allowed to maintain six unrelated people. To increase those numbers, however, the home must receive a waiver to the zoning code, what is known as a "reasonable accommodation request."
Homes housing people legally disabled are protected by the law, and requests for reasonable accommodation of their homes can only be contested on the basis of whether the increased accommodation up to what is allowed by the housing and building codes would cause an undue financial burden to the city. They can also be contested if it would cause a fundamental alteration in the character of the single-family neighborhood beyond what a normal family of that size would cause. Persons who are recovering from drug and alcohol addictions qualify as disabled persons and are protected by the same law.
But residents near the homes say the two provisions don't protect them from other impacts the homes can have, namely mismanagement, noise and behavior problems, transience and instability in the homes, and parking and traffic issues, all of which can lead to reduced property values. They also point out that many recovery home providers are for-profit businesses, which suggests that they may be trying to fit as many people as possible into a single home to increase profits.
In their testimony given Feb. 27, representatives of Rainbow Recovery said they want to work with neighbors to resolve problems, are serious about their management and are merely working to give recovering mothers a chance to be reunited with their children.
Neighbors challenged Rainbow Recovery's statements and requests from many angles, saying it misrepresented itself in its application to the city as not receiving public funds, when it does, and suggesting that it needs additional licensing from the state, when Rainbow Recovery says it doesn't.
The commission heard concerns regarding the Meridian Avenue house first. Much of the neighbors' testimony centered on mismanagement and inappropriate behavior at the house, especially during the summer months, as well as the fact that Rainbow Recovery already houses more than the allowed six residents in the house.
Rainbow Recovery staff for the Meridian house admitted that there are 10 or 11 people living in the home now, six of whom are women and the rest are children. They said the request for additional occupants is to allow more of the women's children to live with them. Each woman gets a single room to share with her children, they said, and the house is not overcrowded.
They also said that last summer's problems were caused in part by the home's residential staff person, who has since been replaced. They said their residents are monitored closely by staff as well as county personnel, and that those issues aren't the domain of the planning commission, anyway.
Rainbow Recovery Director Nancy Wilson was not present at the meeting and was unavailable for comment.
Commission members expressed concern about the issues the neighbors raised, especially the misbehavior and mismanagement problems. City counsil advised the commission, however, to make sure any changes it makes to earlier decisions adhere to the requirements--that otherwise the house would fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. Counsil also said the commission couldn't use bias or fears about potential behavior to influence its decisions.
The majority of the commission decided that the testimony it heard was sufficient evidence that the home as it now operates is problematic to the neighborhood and that an expansion of it would exacerbate those problems. Ross and James opposed any residential increase there; the rest approved a smaller increase than previously approved, with a review after this summer to see if management was better.
The commission then heard testimony regarding the Kilo Avenue house. Residents didn't make any complaints about mismanagement or misbehavior at that house; in fact, some said the house as it now operates is stellar. They based their concerns about increased accommodation at the Kilo house on Rainbow Recovery's misrepresentation to the city and misbehavior at the Meridian house.
The commission noted the difference in testimony, but also was concerned about making its decision on Kilo Avenue consistent with its decision on Meridian. Because the Kilo home is smaller than the Meridian one, the majority of commissioners approved a subsequently smaller increase to 10 total residents, with another review as well.
Counsil reminded the commission that it needed to have actual evidence to make its decision and that the previous agreement for a review was based solely on the experience at the Meridian Avenue house. Ross opposed because he didn't feel the commission had sufficient evidence to oppose the amount approved by staff; Zamora opposed because he didn't feel the commission gave the house enough occupancy for children.
|
|
|
|
Willow Glen, California Since 1992
