4060 Campton Road
 Eureka, California, 95503

August 9, 2000

RE: Appeal - Case No. “CUP 99-12”

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
825 Fifth Street
Eureka, California, 95501

Honorable Board:
Subject: Supporting Information to July 19,2000 Appeal letter

•	On July 19, 2000, Tom Sutton, Dan Molter, Patricia Barnum, and Robert Hariman filed the referenced appeal with the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. This letter contains the supporting information referred to in the appeal letter. The information is formatted into three sections: Background, Specific reasoning for appeal, and supporting information.Background: The area immediately surrounding the property at 4041 F Street, Eureka is zoned as R-1/GO and has been successfully developed as single-family dwellings with full compliance in maintaining Greenway and Open Space (GO). This includes a natural stream that flows within 300 feet of 4041 F Street. This stream supports natural ponds and flows directly into Humboldt Bay. More will be said about the possible threat to this stream in the supporting information. The wooded area bordered by the County single-family homes east of F Street, Grant School on the north and Campton Road on the east not only provides animal habitat but also provides secure pathways for school children to use to get to and from Grant school in safety.

In the mid 1990’s a site was sought in the Eureka area for a homeless shelter. The site in question (4041 F Street) was considered for such a shelter. This site was rejected early in the selection process because it was clearly evident that this residential community was not an appropriate location.

The R3 parcel at 4041 F Street was zoned in that fashion because when the area was set aside for single-family homes, the parcel was being used as a senior care home and was allowed to continue. It is surprising that since the care home is no longer operating that the property did not revert back to RI. There are two businesses within three blocks of the parcel in question. One is almost directly across the street, an automobile repair facility. This facility is in operation on a parcel that is zoned R-I, in violation of zoning requirements. The other parcel is at D and Spruce Streets and is occupied by City Ambulance Company in an area zoned C-I. This site was formerly the site of a small neighborhood grocery store. The rest of the neighborhood is single family with a clearly growing pride in being a safe and improving place to live.

Just west of the subject property is the community of Rosewood, a single-family community. This community has organized itself using the neighborhood watch system to solve a serious drug trafficking problem and make their community safe for their children to play outside and go to school unmolested. For well over a year the citizens of this community have fought hard to bring pride and safety to their neighborhood. With the significant help of the District Attorney’s Office and the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department they are winning their battle to make their homes secure. We feel the proposed facility would undermine the accomplishments the community has made thus far.

•	Specific Reasoning for the Appeal:

As stated in the Conditional Use Permit information provided by the Humboldt County Planning and Building Department,”. . . The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to allow compatible uses which need special consideration (such as a church in a residential zone), and to ensure that the project will not cause problems for: 1) the neighborhood.... The project must also not cause serious public health, safety or welfare problems, or have adverse impact on the environment.”

Until this applicant presented his plan, it has been clear that a residential neighborhood is the wrong place for a large group of admittedly unstable persons to reside. The presentation of this applicant was skillful in that it confused a good part of the neighborhood into thinking that the facility would be a care home for those who were elderly and unable to care for themselves.

The published purpose for the permit was continually changing. On September 9, 1999 the application was for "... Housing for Veterans”... On January 6, 2000 the disclosure was for “...from senior care home to Vietnam Veterans care home...” On April 24, 2000 the disclosure said.”... Veterans and non-veterans into transitional housing...” On June 22,2000 the disclosure said, “...Care home for veterans which will provide transitional housing...”

When it finally became apparent that the facility would house those persons who could not make it by themselves on the streets and needed constant support to help them prepare for the possibility of living on their own and finding useful employment, the neighborhood responded that this project posed a major problem. This project is not at all like a church in a residential neighborhood. Since this is a semi-public facility subsidized with government money intended to benefit of all of the people in the state, it is clearly not needed to make the neighborhood function and therefore should be located where it does not cause a problem of safety and fear in a well functioning neighborhood. More than 200 immediate neighbors of the property at 4041 F Street expressed their concerns that this proposed transitional house was a problem for the neighborhood. Since a criterion for the approval of a conditional use permit is “to ensure that the project will not cause problems".

for: 1) the neighborhood... .“ We were shocked when the planning commission ignored this clear statement of a problem for the neighborhood.

We believe that sheltering 30 men in a home in our neighborhood who have been homeless and/or in treatment programs or incarcerated presents a major safety and security risk Some of these men may be in residence for long periods and some may stay only a short time. Some will be on voluntary medication necessary for their stability. Some of them may be recovering alcohol and/or drug addicts. Some may be convicted felons. They may have friends who want to be in close proximity or they may be persons who have left or been removed from the program and elect to stay in the area and perhaps camp in the adjacent wooded areas since they cannot be required to leave the neighborhood. These same wooded areas are used for school children to get to and from Grant School. The various services needed by these individuals that include medical, educational, government services, etc. will require them to walk the area streets and use area public transportation (the nearest available adjacent to Grant School) since our residential neighborhood is removed from these services. These are the same sidewalks and buses that our children now use without fear. Unfortunately many of the residents of the facility will be former substance abusers. There is concern that drug suppliers will view this facility as a potential market. Why would any parent or grandparent want to bring a shelter for these 30 men into their neighborhood? Is the purpose of a conditional use permit to frighten the neighborhood?

Clearly, we believe that bringing a large transitional house into this residential neighborhood is an improper use of a conditional use permit. But to compound the problem and make it a critical safety and welfare issue, the applicant for this permit has shown substandard and unprofessional qualifications to establish such a transitional house at any location. There has been no business plan provided, no pro-forma balance sheet and accompanying financial management plan, no operational plan, no environmental plan, no safety plan and an incomprehensible staffing plan. There have been no recognized experts brought in to review the project and provide an independent assessment. There have been no disciplined reviews of secondary effects or consequences if events do not occur as predicted.

•	Supporting Information:

The applicant at the public hearings provided a large part of the information we have. We were shown pictures of impressive public buildings in Sacramento and Santa Rosa and were then told that the applicant had rented
·	small offices in these buildings. We were shown pictures of various on-going and prior projects. None of the projects shown were conducted in a single-family residential neighborhood. We were informed that the applicant had suffered financial problems in the past but that they were “over stated” in the press.

August 9, 2000

It is expected that some of the residents will be on medication necessary for mental stability. The applicant has shown no plan to employ qualified medical clinicians on staff to verify that medications are being taken. Experience has shown that unstable individuals may cease their medications when feeling better and become a risk to the community.

The area of disclosure by the applicant that caused the most concern was the constantly changing scenario of how the facility was to be structured and operated. The public raised concerns and there was an immediate change of the scenario. It was like a scene out of the movie “Flim Flam Man” and it would have been humorous had we not been discussing a major impact to our neighborhood. As an example, when the subject of residents being veterans and non-veterans was raised there was an immediate change saying that only veterans would be allowed. There was no mention of how this would affect the business plan. Did this smaller population mean different acceptance criteria? Did it mean there would be difficulty in filling all 30 beds? Did it mean that persons would have to be imported from other locations? Was there a financial impact?

When staffing was discussed the answers were vague and varied. The staffing plan went from a maximum of 3 persons to a minimum of 3 persons to an undetermined number. The question of 24-hour staff was unclear and the security of the facility was in question. It was brought up that 8 doors into the facility could be seen from the street. How was this to effect the location of the residents? The answer was security cameras and a security system. Since most security systems are to keep persons out rather than keep them in, this security system might be difficult to implement. It also might be expensive and require a staff to monitor it.

The applicant disclosed the business that was to be operated on the land covered by the conditional use permit was larger and more complex than any they had conducted in the past and that they were hoping to learn how to operate such a large business by asking others in other parts of the state.

As part of the applicant’s plan a garage on the property was to be used as an automobile service and repair facility. Residents would be allowed to use the facility to work on their cars, change the oil, etc. There seemed to be no plan to closely supervise these residents with the small staff that was presented. This could mean that careless individuals could over time provide polfutants to the immediate area including the stream that runs below the property less than 300 feet away. This stream runs directly into Humboldt Bay without treatment.

The demonstrated lack of planning, experience and qualified personnel acted to increase the apprehension of the neighborhood that the project would jeopardize the safety and peace of the area.

	· Page 5	August 9, 2000

In conclusion, we believe that the planning commission erred in granting a conditional use permit to the Vietnam Veterans of California, Inc. on the property at 4041 F Street, Eureka. The projected use of the land does not meet the published requirements of Humboldt County in that it does cause problems for this residential neighborhood and generates serious safety and welfare concerns within the immediate community. We respectfully request the Board of Supervisors revoke the Conditional Use Permit to the Vietnam Veterans of California, Inc. on the property at 4041 F Street, Eureka.

Sincerely yours,

Tom Sutton, Property Owner within 300 Feet, 4060Campton Road, Eureka

Dan Molter, Property Owner within 300 Feet, 4085 Hartman Lane, Eureka

Patricia Barnum, Neighbor, 4441 Fairway Drive, Eureka

Robert Hartman, Property Owner within 300 Feet, 4079 Hartman Lane, Eureka