Willow Glen, California Since 1992
City Beat
|
By Susan Wiedmann At a June 3 public meeting of the San Jose Economic Development and Environment Committee at city hall, further discussions took place about proposed modifications to San Jose's controversial Group Home Ordinance. This time San Jose Senior Deputy City Attorney Brian Doyle and Senior Planning Director Joe Horwedel provided the committee with recommendations that will be addressed at a city council meeting sometime this summer. But as has been the case in the previous meetings about group homes, two of which are in Willow Glen, no one left the meeting totally satisfied, and some pertinent questions remained unanswered. The meeting was a result of a San Jose City Council directive on Jan. 22. It called for staff from the city attorney's office and the planning department to respond to the group home ordinance revisions suggested in a January memo co-authored by District 10 City Councilwoman Pat Dando, District 9 City Councilman John Diquisto, District 3 City Councilwoman Cindy Chavez and San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales. At the center of the controversy is Rainbow Recovery, a for-profit, county-subsidized rehabilitation program for adults. The individuals participate in drug and alcohol recovery while living in transitional group recovery homes in residential areas. It was Rainbow Recovery's application last summer to nearly triple the number of tenants in two of its homes - from 6 to 17 tenants in a Willow Glen home and from 6 to 18 tenants in a nearby San Jose home - that caused nearby neighbors to unite in opposition last fall. Neighbors have made their objections known repeatedly since then to their city council representatives. About 400 homes are now represented in their Neighbors Unite Coalition, which was initially formed in Willow Glen last fall. It now also represents residents in South San Jose. Bruce Brunger and Greg Misakian, two of its spokespersons from Willow Glen, were present at the June 3 meeting. At the crux of the problem is the request for an increase in occupancy, also called a "reasonable accommodation request" or a waiver of an existing zoning code. Under ordinary circumstances, the code limits the number of unrelated people living in a single-family residence to six individuals. But the present situations are not ordinary, especially with the passage of Proposition 36 in November 2000, in which voters approved treatment instead of jail for drug and alcohol offenders. Nonetheless, existing health and safety regulations and neighborhood considerations also come into play. Last February, the San Jose Planning Commission decided to increase the occupancy of the Willow Glen recovery group home and the nearby San Jose home, but not to the degree requested by the operator. The Willow Glen home can now house up to 10 residents, of which six can be adult women, including the residential staff person and five can be licensed drivers; four children can live on the premises. The nearby San Jose home can have a maximum of 12 residents, with a breakdown nearly identical to the Willow Glen provisions. "I was originally doing this as a child advocate, and still am, because they were trying to put up to 10 children with adults on the property and have 17 people living there, people coming out of the criminal justice system with a low level of supervisory skills," Misakian said. He added that neighbors of the Willow Glen house complained to him that a child had to ask the neighbors to take her to school, and he was a witness to a small child from the house alone after dark on the sidewalk. Misakian said he waited to make certain the child went back into the house. It's the related reasonable accommodation issue that continues to be the focal point of problems surrounding the group homes. "We are trying to create awareness among all these residents who have no clue that a house in any neighborhood can be a drug rehab home, and that it may not be licensed, and that it may be overcrowded," Brunger said, adding that his group wants the city to be more coordinated with the county so that "they run a tight ship" to make certain neighbors are safe and not unduly burdened. At the June 3 meeting, city council members Dando, Diquisto, David Cortese, Linda LeZotte and Forrest Williams listened to Doyle and Horwadel's recommendations. Citing case law for all his points, the city attorney's response to issues raised in the Jan. 22 memo included recommendations that the reasonable accommodation process continue to consider the business aspects and appropriate numbers of residents in a proposed facility on a case-by-case basis, while focusing on the impacts on the neighborhood. Also suggested was the possibility of San Jose and Santa Clara County setting minimum operational standards to possibly include limiting the number of residents at facilities under contract with the county or subject to county certifications. Another set of recommendations included amendments to the zoning code to make changes in procedure as follows: Eliminate an initial notice to the neighbors if it has not undergone any analysis; refine what must be included in the operator's application; require a meeting with staff to go over the application and then ask for a meeting with neighbors; issue the proposed decision, stating there will be an informal conference on the site with staff and interested neighbors for discussion purposes; at the director's hearing the focus should summarize the issues discussed and resolved; and if on appeal to the planning commission it cannot come to a decision, then the decision of the director will stand. Council members disagreed on a proposed amendment regarding the notifying distance requirement of neighbors near a proposed home or near one that has made an reasonable accommodation request. They also could not agree on the number of days neighbors could have to file an appeal after a decision on a proposed home or reasonable accommodation is made. The city council will discuss and resolve those and other related matters when the group home ordinance is on its agenda in the near future. Other recommendations from the city attorney included accurate, careful record keeping, especially to ensure that no area is overly impacted by residential facilities, and choosing a central source to be in charge of receiving all complaints and following up on their resolution. Part of the June 3 committee discussion centered on what Dando called the "gamesmanship" of the operator when it asks for a high number in its reasonable accommodation request, a number that health and safety regulations would not permit. The result is that such a request often causes a neighborhood to become unduly upset. Dando said she wants the council to demand an actual, workable number when the operator makes its request. "I think the meeting went well," Misakian said. "I think council member Dando and councilman Diquisto have a good focus on the neighbors' concerns. With that in mind and the issues they brought up, I think we're fairly satisfied." But he added that he thinks some unresolved issues, such as licensing, might have to be resolved through the legal system or at the legislative level. Although representatives of Rainbow Recovery were not present at the meeting, their attorney, Jeffrey Janoff, said that based on what he has learned about the recommended modifications to the ordinance, he thinks it is all about "a solution that doesn't have a problem." He said that the homes are strictly run, in compliance with federal housing laws, and that requests for reasonable accommodation are in compliance with California state law. "All of these discussions are reactions to neighborhood concerns, and I think it is appropriate for the council to respond to neighborhood concerns," Janoff said. If the council passes modifications to the ordinance, he said, they will be studied and challenged, if necessary. Janoff said that the number of people in the Willow Glen and nearby San Jose homes fluctuates regularly, but the homes' occupancy complies with the February planning department decision allowing up to 10 in the Willow Glen home and up to 12 in the other home. He does not agree with that decision because Rainbow Recovery had requested a higher occupancy at the residences. "There was not one shred of evidence on the record of any problems at the Willow Glen home," he said. At the end of the meeting, a couple of audience members asked questions for which the committee did not have answers. A woman questioned why the city allows seven different types of group homes to exist on her one-quarter mile street, even though some of them have individuals creating problems for adults and children passing by. A man asked if the taxpayers of Santa Clara County are supporting tenants in the program who are not residents of the county. A homeowner described losing renters of her home because of the jail - and drug-related conversations taking place over the shared fence with the group home next door, and she spoke of her concerns about having to disclose that situation if she tries to sell her house. Another homeowner questioned the lucrative business the operators are running even after they pay inflated rents for the houses that they convince prospective sellers to rent to them instead of selling. |
Feedback, or story ideas for the Willow Glen Resident?
(Close this Window to go back to our home page.)
Copyright © SVCN, LLC. Maintained by GoGuys, Inc.