HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05121992 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator C ltra
By: John Gregory �► (ala
DATE: May 12, 1992 ,x( /
SUBJECT: Interim Report on Investigation of Morehouse/Humore, Inc.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND.JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT this report from the County Administrator as an interim status of the investigation into
concerns expressed by the public regarding the Morehouse/Humore, Inc. property.
2. CONSIDER actions related to the investigation which would:
a. Request Building Inspection staff to have discussion in connection with the complaints made
by concerned citizens and neighbors, request Morehouse/Humore, Inc. not to expand its activities on
the property until an agreement has been reached with neighbors on appropriate actions to be taken
to address their concerns;
b. Request that Morehouse/Humore, Inc. provide access to county staff to insure continuing
compliance with building, zoning, health, and fire regulations and any other applicable regulations and
to allay concerns of neighbors and other concerned citizens that any violations of such regulations may
be occurring on the property in connection with providing housing for homeless persons;
c. Request that Morehouse/Humore, Inc. consult with fire district personnel regarding any
possible fire hazards on the property and cooporate in correcting any such fire hazards;
d. Request that Morehouse/Humore, Inc. comply with any applicable health requirements for
appropriate sanitation facilities pertaining to their operations on the property;
CONTINUED ON ATTAC$MENT: _X_YES SIGNATURE:
ACTION OF BOARD ON ',lam APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
John Gregory reviewed the above report and recommendations, and suggested that staff bring
back a further report on May 19, 1992. The Board heard comments from Mr. Ken Boasso and Mr. Ron
Wetter, neighbors of Morehouse. Board members, County Counsel and other staff discussed the
matter at length. A motion to accept the report, with staff to report further in one week
failed to carry, with Supervisors Powers, Schroder and McPeak voting in opposition. Following
further discussion, the Board ACKNOWLDGED RECEIPT of the above report and noted that it is not
in concurrence with all of background and reasons, and REQUESTED staff to return on May 19, 1992
with a further report, to include information from the police departments of the Cities of
Lafayette and Walnut Creek, and REQUESTED Supervisor Fanden to meet with the parties to try to
resolve the problems.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTEDA, /yy �
PHIL BATCHELOR-, CLERK OF
THE BOARV OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc• CAO
Building Inspection
Community Development BY , DEPUTY
Consolidated Fire
Sheriff
District Attorney
County Counsel
Public Works
Health Services
h26:jgmrehse.bos
L
e. Direct staff of Community Development Department, Building Inspection Department,
Health Services Department, Public Works Department, Sheriff, and Fire Department to consult
with residents of the surrounding community and representatives of Morehouse/Humore, Inc. in
order to reach agreement for resolving concerns expressed by neighbors and other citizens;
f. Request that if, as a result of staff investigations, violations are found and continue
to exist and no acceptable agreements have been reached, that involved county staff, including
the County Counsel's office and the District Attorney's office, be directed to take appropriate
enforcement action to obtain compliance; and
g. Request that staff investigate the erected tents to determine if any illegal nuisances
subject to abatement under Chapter 14-6 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code exist and
if so, and not immediately abated by Morehouse/Humore, Inc. , direct staff to initiate appropriate
abatement action.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff time of 6 different departments involved in the investigation of this matter.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 5, 1992, the Board of Supervisors, acting in part as a response to objections raised by
concerned citizens in an unincorporated County area loosely identified as being between Lafayette
and Walnut Creek and referred to as an operation called Morehouse/Humore, Inc. , requested that
the County Administrator's Office, in conjunction with the Building Inspection, Community
Development,' Health, Public Works, Sheriff's, and Fire Departments and County Counsel,
conduct an investigation of conditions surrounding the housing of homeless on the land owned by
Morehouse/Humore, Inc.
The property is located on approximately 16 acres of land which is zoned R-20, (single family
residential; 20,000 square feet minimum parcel size). Among the uses allowed by County Code
at page 316 are the following:
84. - 14.402. Use-Allowed. The following uses are allowed in the R-20 district:
(1) "A detached single family dwelling on each lot and the accessing
structures and use normally auxiliary to it;"
Community residents have voiced the opinion that the present use of the facility to house
homeless persons requires a land use permit and/or public hearings. Under Section 84-
4.404 Uses Requiring Land Use Permit:
4. Community buildings, clubs and activities of a quasi-public,
social, fraternal, or recreational character, such as golf, tennis
and swimming clubs and veterans' and fraternal organizations.
Because money is not being exchanged for services provided, the facilities are still being
considered private dwellings and no land use permit is necessary. Given the nature of the use
of the property, investigations by County staff do not find a land use permit is required.
Morehouse/Humore, Inc. indicates that all money used to support their activities is owner
provided and/or by donation. Were monies to be charged to stay at the residence, there would
be a commercial use of the property. There is no evidence that this is the case.
As to the number of individuals residing on the property and the County's ability to limit or
restrict the number of related or unrelated individuals; there is little ability to regulate or limit
the number of individuals who make up a household.
The California Supreme Court has determined that cities and counties violate the privacy of
individuals in any attempt to limit the number of persons residing in single family residences.
The California Constitution guarantees the right of privacy. the Court found in a case entitled
City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (27 Cal. 3rd 123) that local ordinances designed to limit or
restrict the number of unrelated individuals making up a household are unconstitutional on
privacy grounds, and are therefore unenforceable.
In response to other concerns in this matter, on April 29, 1992 a joint inspection of
Morehouse/Humore, Inc. residence was made by staff representatives from Building, Zoning and
Health to determine possible County Code violations. the inspection revealed the following:
* The `tents are not "structures" as defined in Section 82-4.270 of the County Code.
* The tents are used for sleeping only.
2
* Showers and toilets are available in existing buildings.
* Cooking and food preparation is done in the existing buildings.
* High weeds and grass exist around tent quarters; these require immediate
attention.
* Additional chemical toilets are required for service of the occupants of the tents.
* There was no recognizable human waste or odors and no other sanitary problems
were readily observed.
There is no County regulation on the erection of tents on private property. To suggest removal
ignores the question of privacy rights. An analogy might be drawn from the countless backyard
parties which employ tents.
Although the erection of a tent would seem to be beyond the scope of County control, the
occupants of those tents may not conduct themselves in a manner that can be construed as a
public nuisance. Public excrement, drunkenness and/or lewd threatening behavior cannot be
obtrusive to the surrounding community. According to neighbors, public drunkenness, fighting
and public excrement is a way of life for residents at Morehouse/Humore. Further observation
by County staff, including substantiated Sheriff's reports will need to occur before a
determination can be made that there is sufficient behavior warranting determination of a pubic
nuisance.
As to the allegations that the County is taking a soft approach to this issue because
Morehouse/Humore provides for homeless, it is not, and has never been, County policy to defray
a responsibility of this sort to a private entity. However, it should be recognized that
homelessness knows no particular boundary. Real world situations cannot be blocked out because
of public perception that any one are ought to be immune because of social, economic or ethical
status.
The best solution to this issue is to have both sides agree to work toward a mutually amiable and
viable solution; one which involves voluntary compliance and neighborhood flexibility.
3