Concerns heard on group homes

Two clearly-marked paths are emerging in Newport Beach’s journey toward new regulations for drug and alcohol recovery homes in the community.

One is seemingly smoother. The city used outside attorneys to draw up conservative rules that target a few specific issues and are designed to withstand potential court challenges.

The other path could be more treacherous — legally, at least. A group of residents, angry at how they say recovery homes have changed the character of their neighborhoods, hired an attorney who outlined more aggressive rules to quickly address existing facilities as well as new ones.

The residents’ view appears to be gaining traction, at least in this early stage of drafting new regulations. At the first public hearing on the new rules, held Thursday, the city’s planning commission opted to have the residents’ demands incorporated into the draft rules or get a good legal explanation why they shouldn’t.

The battle over drug recovery homes has been brewing for years. Residents have complained about problems such as recovery home clients making noise and throwing cigarette butts in their yards, delivery trucks and shuttle vans blocking their streets, and more severe problems such as drug deals and other crimes.

“They’re here to make a profit. They don’t care an awful lot about the neighborhood,” resident Ken Drellishak told the commission Thursday.

Recovery home operators have been less vocal, but when they’ve spoken out they’ve said some of the more extreme complaints are unsubstantiated, and on other issues they’ve tried to work with residents to be better neighbors.

“The things that are being asked for, we do,” said Todd Kramer, who operates the Kramer Center, a drug and alcohol treatment home. “We had to do that to follow the rules.”

But not everyone does follow the rules, and that’s the city’s main point of attack in the new regulations. They would require new recovery homes to get a permit, which typically would go through a public hearing process and could be appealed.

A key change is that facilities with six or fewer clients wouldn’t be exempt from needing a permit if they operate with other facilities — for example, if clients live in adjacent units of a duplex run by the same operator. Now, six-or-fewer homes in some cases must be treated like any other residence and are subject to little regulation.

The city tried to tread carefully with the new rules because a maze of state and federal laws restrict them. Most importantly, perhaps, is that recovering drug and alcohol addicts are classified by law as disabled and as such are protected from housing discrimination. Denying them the right to live in Newport Beach would not be legally defensible, city officials have said.

Several residents told the commission Thursday the city’s proposed new rules aren’t even close to what they’d like to see.

“Residents were asked for input, we gave our input and then it wasn’t taken into account,” Lori Morris said.

The commission agreed to give more consideration to their requests, one of which was to quickly bring existing facilities into compliance once new rules are passed. The city was waiting to decide how best to do that, but residents suggested all facilities should register with the city in 30 days, and any that need permits apply within six months.

A trickier request was for a distance requirement, which residents say will address the overconcentration of recovery homes in residential areas.

Attorney Alene Taber, who said she represents more than 100 residents, said residents want recovery homes to be at least 1,000 feet from each other and from schools and parks. The cities of Murrieta and Riverside have similar rules, she said.

But the city’s legal advisors have pointed out that distance requirements have been repeatedly rejected by state lawmakers, and a staff report specifically noted that “separation requirements are classified by the courts as facially discriminatory.”

Despite those opinions, planning commissioners wanted to take a shot at tougher rules. They argued it will benefit recovering addicts by ensuring they’re not “in a ghetto, if you will, of care facilities,” as commissioner Barry Eaton put it.

Eaton and other commissioners appeared to want to go even further, potentially banning larger recovery facilities in some residential districts.

“There’s probably, in my mind, a need for these facilities not to be in a residential area at all,” commissioner Earl McDaniel said. “These clearly are not residences…. It’s a business that’s congregated in a residential area.”

The planning commission will hold a second public hearing on the new rules, with changes to make them stricter, on July 19. If the commission approves them, they’ll go to the City Council.