MINUTES
Page 4
July 6, 2000

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.	VIETNAM VETERANS, EUREKA AREA; A Conditional Use Permit application to develop a former, senior care home into a care home for Veterans. The care home will provide transitional housing through a program provided by Vietnam Veterans of California, Inc. (VVC). All VVC participants must execute a contract and abide by all Program rules. The VVC proposes to provide space and facilities for 30 beds. The facility will be operational 24 hours per day with a maximum of three (3) staff members on-site at any given time. The VVC also proposes to use and remodel the existing structures on the approximate 1 acre parcel. The structures will continue to be served by community water and sewer. CASE NO. CUP-99-12, FILE NO. APN O18~223-O9. (AP)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:	Open the public hearing and receive testimony concerning whether the notice for February 3. 2000 public hearing was defective: if Commission finds the notice defective. re-open public hearing on project application: make all the required findings. based on evidence in the staff report and public testimony: and approve the project subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

MINUTES
Page 5
July 6, 2000

Staff Comments and Commission Discussion:

Director Kirk Girard recapped the status of the project originally heard on February 3, 2000. Some of the homeowners were not noticed as required. The applicants wish to retain their rights to the original permit and Staff has been working with them to find the best course. Mr. Girard has discussed the issues of noticing with counsel and it has been determined that there was a substantial defect in the procedure which the commission should consider before re-opening the Public Hearing on the project. The commission will open a Public Hearing on this issue to decide if the finding nullifies the previous decision.

Commissioner Mary Gearheart asked for clarification which Mr. Girard provided.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED ON THE NOTIFICATION ISSUE.

Public Speakers.

Peter Cameron, Executive Director of VVC spoke in favor of the project going forward without nullification due to the defect of non-notification.

The following persons gave testimony on non-notification:
Tom Sutton
Dan Molter
Bryan Little
Tern Vroman
Jenny Wright

The following persons spoke against nullification:
Ben Fewell, Project Applicant
Marilyn Grovan
Paul Stichey
Daniel Miller

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.

THE MOTION WAS MADE (J. Smith/Blyther) to rescind the February 3, 2000, Public Hearing and hear additional testimony on the basis of a defect in notification.

Kirk Girard restated the conditions of nullification and the consequences of it.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.

Staff Comments and Commission Discussion:

Kirk Girard gave a status report regarding the decision and its effect on the current Public Hearing. He stated that the first Public Hearing did not count but that the testimony given in the two properly noticed hearings would remain a part of the record and that the current Public Hearing would constitute the third hearing on this project.

MINUTES
Page 6
July 6, 2000

Anita Punla explained Supplemental #5; she read each finding and summarized the information and described the revised conditions of approval. She stated that the project complies with the usage for this zone and with the General Plan. She further explained the Conditions of Approval including the added conditions. She read the additional operational condition in its entirety. This included a Monitoring Report which must be submitted to the Planning Division within 30 days of the one-year anniversary of the opening of the care home, i.e. housing of the first participant. Staff developed these conditions in conjunction with VVC.

There was a brief discussion between the commission and staff regarding clarification of these modified conditions.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED ON THE PROJECT APPLICATION.

Ben Fewell, Project Applicant spoke briefly on the project and would like to have it approved. He is willing to answer any questions tonight and address any new issues.

Commissioner Blyther asked for clarification on Item 6.

The following persons spoke in favor of the project:
Philip Wagner
Linda Ann Cummings
Daniel Miller
Kai Williams

The following persons spoke against the project:
Tom Sutton
Robert Barnum
Dan Molter
Sharon Cole
Bryan Little
Tern Vroman
Carol Yanich
Ginger Molter
Jenny Wright
John Segress

Ben Fewell gave a brief rebuttal and answered the concerns mentioned by the public and the commission. The first concern answered was concerning the police reports. Mr. Fewell stated that there were police calls generated by the facility on E Street but there were none by neighbors of the facility calling to report complaints about program participant violence, trespassing, or any other issue. The police have visited because of a medical call and a threat directed against a participant. The next concern addressed was the zoning issue. The current project is within the current zone usage allowed. Safety and staffing issues have been addressed and have been modified to satisfisfy the neighborhood. Peer monitoring will also be used to augment staff availability. Security systems are already in place in the building which monitors open doors and movement throughout the facility. There is also a possibility that closed circuit televisions will be used. Psychiatric evaluations will remain in use; the psychiatrist testified at previous hearing in great detail on how these evaluations are done. Background checks are being done by the Sheriffs Department and the project has been in consultation with an attorney to allow them to access the background checks. They are using A-Check, a nation-wide, private security company. He also requested that anyone in attendance who

MINUTES
Page 7
July 6, 2000

has information or suggestions on obtaining NCIC or Department of Justice assistance would be appreciated. There are definitions of the various phases in the record. There are many clients in various phases in the current facility and to provide required service, this will continue. Parking issues have been addressed in the plans and the record. The project will continue to work with the neighborhood but may not be able to address some of the fears based on emotions rather than the objective evidence. Citizens are encouraged to visit the E Street facility and to discuss the project. He appreciated the opportunity to discuss these specific issues.

Chair Emad asked if one of the conditions for approval is a review by the commission at the end of one year of operation, how would he feel about it? Ben Fewell responded that he feels that a one year review will allay many of the fears expressed at this time. His understanding of the review is that it will be considered at a Public Hearing and that the process should answer the concerns of the neighborhood at that time. Commissioner Blyther asked if they would be willing to add staff on the weekends as well as during normal business hours; is there flexibility in the staff assignments? Ben Fewell answered that there is flexibility but there must be an understanding that there must be more than just fear on the part of the neighborhood. If the program can demonstrate safety and efficiency with that staffing pattern, they should be allowed to do so. Commissioner Blyther stated that because some participants may be out during the day, more staff may be needed on the weekends. Ben Fewell responded that peer monitoring would be used and that during the evenings the same number of staff would be needed as the weekends. Commissioner Blyther asked what percentage of each phase will be at the facility. Ben Fewell:
approximately 15 percent will be in Phase I.

Commissioner Blyther asked about the screening process and will there be anyone admitted directly at the
-facility (from off the street)? Ben Fewell: no one is admitted without first going to the office which is in another location. They must also complete the full screening process including background checks and qualification for the program. They are sent for medical and psychological evaluations. In the past 22 months, 30 of 58 people enrolled in the current facility have been successfully moved into their own living spaces. Chair Emad asked if an applicant could arrive via an ambulance after being rejected by a hospital. Ben Fewell answered that no one may be admitted without the proper screening process being. completed; most come to the program through referral. If someone comes to the facility without this, they are referred or transferred to the proper facility such as a homeless shelter or medical facility. A staff member would direct them to another facility or transport the person if necessary.

Commissioner Blyther asked if for the first year, the project would consider not housing anyone convicted of a violent crime. Ben Fewell responded that he was not prepared to state that at this time. The screening process is pretty thorough at this time and there doesn’t seem to be a reason to do that at this time. If that is going to a required, then he would like to be able to think about it further. Commissioner J. Smith gave an example of someone convicted for a felony without malfeasance and asked if Mr. Fewell could give an example of someone who would not be admitted. Ben Fewell answered that sex offenders would not be admitted; someone who has a history of assaults or other violence would not be admitted. During the psychological exam if the assessment shows that the person may act out in a violent way, they would not be admitted. This is for the safety for the participants as well as the public. In addition, anyone who shows violence while in the program would be immediately rejected. Commissioner J. Smith said that the main concern of the public seems to be that the program will be importing violent criminals into the neighborhood. Perhaps guidelines should be provided by the commission; could Mr. Fewell suggest conditions of approval that would answer these concerns. Mr. Fewell stated there are several different ways to approach this, such as security, but that it would take time to do this and he does not want to delay the process any further than it has been. He is willing to consider a variety of options and if it is necessary

MINUTES
Page 8
July 6, 2000

to limit the types of people they take in, they are willing to consider that. However it would be best if they could continue to use the current program which has been successful.

Chair Emad said that safety is of great concern and that the part that he differs with Commissioner Smith on is that he doesn’t accept the process as working every day. When you have young children 200 yards or 200 feet away from the facility, it is difficult to sleep at night. It is one thing to house veterans who have had hard times for whatever reason but it is quite another to house ex-convicts. Ben Fewell said that the current program has been running for two years with all levels of people just four doors down from a nursery school and there have been no issues at all. Some of the people with one incidence of violence have been the most successful because they are highly motivated. They are now out in the community and very, very productive. Perhaps staff could make appropriate recommendations.

Ben Fewell: There are two questions that have been asked. Who is the person handling the background checks at the Sheriffs Department and the other is staffing on weekends; he will need to find out the first and would like suggestions on what the neighborhood would be comfortable with.

Kirk Girard verbalized the new case management criteria agreed to by the VVC. There are essentially four new conditions which will be reviewed at the one-year review with the possibility of being relaxed or removed: 1) Reworded Condition 6.VVC will not house individuals convicted of a violent crime involving a deadly or lethal weapon; 2) Two convictions of violent crimes; 3) A felony conviction of violent crime within the preceding five years; or, 4) Refusal to use prescribed medication for violent behavior. These are four explicit conditions relating to violent crimes.

Chair Emad stated that the public hearing is still open and subsequent to that, Ben Fewell will be answering any questions that arise. Is there anyone else who would like to come up and discuss specifically anything that has come up in this hearing or something new?

The public hearing continued:

Jenny Wright asked what would be done about someone knocking on the door and being turned away. Since the homeless shelter is across town, what would keep them from just finding a nearby bush?

Marilyn Grovan offered to transport people to the Rescue Mission if needed.

Sharon Cole wanted to know what was meant by “care and supervision is not an issue.”
Terry Vroman said that the whole issue of convictions is an issue. A person could live out that five years
in prison and be at a higher level of stress when they get out than when they were convicted.
Carol Yanich stated that a lot of people concerned are not here tonight.

Chair Emad responded that the past testimony is part of the record and the commission will continue to consider all the testimony given.

Ben Fewell: People who need a ride to the mission, we give them a ride. We do not just leave people on the street but we do not have control over anyone who refuses a ride or referral. We make every effort to provide assistance including transportation. Commissioner Smith said that the other question is whether people would be attracted to the facility such as signage. Ben Fewell responded that this has not been an issue at the current facility and signage is still under discussion. Since it is a veterans’ facility, it has been suggested that a flag should be flown and he feels that is appropriate. Chair Emad asked about the ex-convicts and the length of time such as 5 years, 8 years. Ben Fewell responded that the length of time was

MINUTES
Page 8
July 6, 2000

to limit the types of people they take in, they are willing to consider that. However it would be best if they could continue to use the current program which has been successful.

Chair Emad said that safety is of great concern and that the part that he differs with Commissioner Smith on is that he doesn’t accept the process as working every day. When you have young children 200 yards or 200 feet away from the facility, it is difficult to sleep at night. It is one thing to house veterans who have had hard times for whatever reason but it is quite another to house ex-convicts. Ben Fewell said that the current program has been running for two years with all levels of people just four doors down from a nursery school and there have been no issues at all. Some of the people with one incidence of violence have been the most successful because they are highly motivated. They are now out in the community and very, very productive. Perhaps staff could make appropriate recommendations.

Ben Fewell: There are two questions that have been asked. Who is the person handling the background checks at the Sheriffs Department and the other is staffing on weekends; he will need to find out the first and would like suggestions on what the neighborhood would be comfortable with.

Kirk Girard verbalized the new case management criteria agreed to by the VVC. There are essentially four new conditions which will be reviewed at the one-year review with the possibility of being relaxed or removed: 1) Reworded Condition 6,VVC will not house individuals convicted of a violent crime involving a deadly or lethal weapon; 2) Two convictions of violent crimes; 3) A felony conviction of violent crime within the preceding five years; or, 4) Refusal to use prescribed medication for violent behavior. These are four explicit conditions relating to violent crimes.

Chair Emad stated that the public hearing is still open and subsequent to that, Ben Fewell will be answering any questions that arise. Is there anyone else who would like to come up and discuss specifically anything that has come up in this hearing or something new?

The public hearing continued:

Jenny Wright asked what would be done about someone knocking on the door and being turned away. Since the homeless shelter is across town, what would keep them from just finding a nearby bush?

Marilyn Grovan offered to transport people to the Rescue Mission if needed.

Sharon Cole wanted to know what was meant by “care and supervision is not an issue.”
Terry Vroman said that the whole issue of convictions is an issue. A person could live out that five years
in prison and be at a higher level of stress when they get out than when they were convicted.
Carol Yanich stated that a lot of people concerned are not here tonight.

Chair Emad responded that the past testimony is part of the record and the commission will continue to consider all the testimony given.

Ben Fewell: People who need a ride to the mission, we give them a ride. We do not just leave people on the street but we do not have control over anyone who refuses a ride or referral. We make every effort to provide assistance including transportation. Commissioner Smith said that the other question is whether people would be attracted to the facility such as signage. Ben Fewell responded that this has not been an issue at the current facility and signage is still under discussion. Since it is a veterans’ facility, it has been suggested that a flag should be flown and he feels that is appropriate. Chair Emad asked about the ex-convicts and the length of time such as 5 years, 8 years. Ben Fewell responded that the length of time was

MINUTES
Page 9
July 6, 2000

a compromise and that the psychological evaluations should reveal anyone who is not ready for the program. Commissioner Smith said that we do not want a person with violent behavior to be admitted and that if they have been incarcerated it may be hard to determine this. Ben Fewell brought up the point that if a person is likely to reoffend, they usually have offended while incarcerated and those other charges are on record. Commissioner Smith suggested that if the applicant had been convicted 10 years ago and got out five years ago, then that would be evidence. Ben Fewell said that they would not be going from a controlled environment to an uncontrolled environment. The environment we provide is quite controlled. Commissioner Smith said that the E Street facility can have that but this facility needs extra measures.

Chair Emad asked if the facility could be filled with veterans who do not have any convictions for violent crimes; why does is need to be 13% violent offenders? Ben Fewell stated that some of these may be ready for assistance and he would like to be able to offer it to those individuals. However, if not, then the program will only service those who have no violence in their records but he would like to have the option for those who need the program and who are not going to present a threat. He appreciates the public’s concerns. Commissioner Blyther asked for clarification on the email that Ms. Yanich received. Anita Punla gave Mr. Fewell the email and he read it aloud. Ben Fewell said that the email referred to a conversation regarding dispensing of medication. He stated that medication will not be dispensed on-site. As to the additional question on weekend staffing, we would like more input so we may address that issue. Chair Emad said that the issue of staffing is directly related to the issue of housing ex-convicts.

Chair Emad asked that the applicant and staff review the suggested conditions and come up with new conditions to be added to the project and implemented in the Monitoring Report.

Kirk Girard provided additional conditions. 1) Full disclosure of the prison records would be required from the parole/probation officer. Recognition is given to the community and their concerns but it is an important part of the program to give transitional means to those individuals who are trying to return to society. 2) An additional condition is that if someone has been convicted of a violent crime, they must have been out of prison for a minimum of one year on their own recognizance. These are two additional conditions placed on the program.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.

Commissioner Smith commented that the commission has a duty to look out for the community as a whole and that they must work with the General Plan which included a decision on usage of certain zones. In this particular case, the zone regulations allow for this use with conditions of approval. Within this framework, our job is to implement this policy in a just and fair manner to all people and all projects. In this particular case, the evidence must support the required findings. If the evidence supports the finding of fact, it is our responsibility to support the project. If the evidence does not support the finding of fact, it is our responsibility to deny the project. In this case, at least 90% of the testimony revolved around the issue of whether this project would be detrimental to public safety. Along those lines, there has been tremendous mitigation put in place and the public input process has worked. There are a tremendous amount of additional conditions and the strengthening of the original conditions which will significantly change how this project is administered if it is approved. With the mitigations in place and the additional conditions, I will suggest in my motion that the required findings can be made and that we should approve the project. In addition, I move that we approve the project with the supplemental conditions as read by Kirk Girard. I have one additional condition which should be considered. I move that we amend Condition 1. to say that the monitoring period be two years with two reports to be made. The first monitoring report will be due at the end of one year and then the second monitoring report will be due at the end of the second year with both reports being reviewed at that time in regard to the responsiveness of the project to those issues.

MINUTES
Page 10
July 6, 2000

Commissioner Blyther asked for Condition 6. to be reread for clarification.

Kirk Girard said that the revised Condition No. 6 states that the VVC will not house individuals convicted of a violent crime involving a deadly or lethal weapon, or two convictions of violent crimes, or a felony conviction of violent crime within the preceding five years, or, anyone released from incarceration for a violent crime within the past year, or anyone who refuses to use prescribed medication for violent behavior, and VVC will secure prison records of anyone convicted of a violent crime within the preceding five years; and, that this condition is in place and subject to review at the end of the first year.

Commissioner Blyther asked if the wording on weekend staffing is included in Commissioner Smith’s motion. Commissioner Smith said that his motion was silent on that issue.

Chair Emad closed the discussion.

Kirk Girard read the new wording of Condition 6:

VVC will not house individuals who:
1.	have been convicted of a violent crime involving a deadly or lethal weapon;
2.	have conviction(s) of violent crimes or a felony conviction of a violent crime within the preceding five years;
3.	have been released from incarceration as a result of a felony conviction of a violent crime within the preceding year;
4.	are on medication to control that behavior and who refuse to take medication as prescribed.

THE MOTION WAS MADE (Jeff Smith, Gearheart) to make all the required findings, based on evidence in the staff report, Supplemental Information, and public testimony; and approve the project subject to the recommended revised conditions of approval and the additional amendments.

THE MOTION PASSED 4-1. CHAIR EMAD VOTED NO.

Kirk Girard read the appeal instructions.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES: NONE.

OLD BUSINESS: Kirk Girard asked that a resolution for Gmny Chandler be continued to August 3, 2000.

NEW BUSINESS: NONE.

THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M. TO JULY 13, 2000