Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06091992 - 2.4 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator COSta ... :..• f.� y-: DATE: June 8, 1992 +r............... :-�.= County SUBJECT: SECOND INTERIM REPORT ON REVIEW OF ISSUE CONCERNING MOREHOUSE/HUMORE, INC. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS : 1 . Accept this report from the County Administrator on the continuing county staff review of allegations regarding the Morehouse/Humore, Inc . property. 2 . Direct that staff continue to review and investigate: a. alleged violations regarding health, zoning, fire, safety, traffic and land use regulations; b. efforts to develop a mutually acceptable agreement between the neighbors and Morehouse/Humore and consider involvement of a third party mediator; C . direct that the California Highway Patrol be. contacted to actively enforce parking violations and traffic regulations in the unincorporated areas around Morehouse; d. request that the Public Works Department investigate whether parking regulations should be reviewed. 3 . Direct that staf f report back at its July 7 meeting on the further findings of their continuing investigation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: '_YES SIGNATURE: wv RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 9, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X APPROVED recommendations set forth above ; INSTRUCTED County Counsel and staff to notify representative of Morehouse/Humore of the need to apply for a land use permit as well as pursue the necessary steps for the abatement of the tents . �- Supervisor Powers expressed concern with the land use permit process and advised that he would be voting against that portion of the motion. (See attachment for Speakers ' List) VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: S ee above) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Please see Page 5. ATTESTED June 92 1992 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY -2- 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 organization called Morehouse/Humore, Inc . , requested that the County Administrator' s Office, in conjunction with the Building Inspection, Community Development, Health Services, Public Works, Sheriff-Coroner, Fire Departments and County Counsel, conduct an investigation of conditions surrounding the housing of homeless on the land owned by Morehouse/Humore, Inc. On May 12, 1992, the Board discussed a staff report concerning this matter and asked that a Subsequent report be made at its May 19 meeting. At that meeting the County Administrator was directed to conduct a meeting between Lafayette, Morehouse/Humore, Inc. , and its neighbors . The purpose of the meeting was to review concerns between the neighbors and Morehouse to attempt to begin developing a plan for resolution of this matter. A meeting was held in the large conference room at the Central Library in Pleasant Hill . The meeting was attended by Supervisor Fanden and her staff; Scott Tandy and John Gregory of the County Administrator' s Office; Dennis Barry, Community Development; Frank Lew and Micki Perez, Building Inspection; Lt. Doug Mongsene, Sheriff; Bob Tietjen, Walnut Creek Police Department; Kim Jensen, Walnut Creek Crime Prevention; and merchants representing Thrifty, Petrini ' s and Animal Crackers ; and four individuals from the surrounding community and four individuals from Morehouse. From that meeting a framework of concerns were developed, listed as follows : Neighbors Concerns : 1 . Guest density allows for too many people on the Morehouse property. 2 . Too much noise for neighborhood. 3 . The adequacy of the sanitation facilities to handle large numbers of guests . 4 . Concerns regarding public protection with guests wandering around public streets and compromising local residents ' personal comfort and safety. 5 . Litter and debris have become an eyesore, which was not the case before Morehouse increase their activity. Dust from the increased travel on the unpaved access road to Morehouse has increased to a point of irritation. Traffic and parking problems have increased to the point that neighbors comp14in about not having parking in and around the homes in the area. 6 . There is concern that fire hazards exist by the actual physical nature of the tents , as well as their location, in grass areas of the Morehouse property. 7 . The neighbors contend that this is a quasi-public service which has occurred without a permit and that the land use of the property has changed without a public hearing. Morehouse Concerns : I . Their representatives reject the idea they are a homeless shelter. They indicate that the guests are at a lower density than that of the neighboring condominiums . 2 . Better structures such as cabins or pre-fab facilities were desired by Morehouse. 3 . Sanitation problems were described as a concern in that there would not be enough porta-potties available. -3- 4 . Public protection is a concern given Morehouse statement that for years they have had their property and equipment vandalized. Desirable Outcome as Outlined by Neighbors and Morehouse 1 . Due process on land use and quasi-public question 2 . Litter control and abatement 3 . Removal of cars 4 . Dust control on gravel road 5 . Guests to obey laws Action to be Taken The next item discussed was what each side was willing to do to address the concerns of each. They are as follows : 1 . Morehouse would warn guests after one reported incident from the Walnut Creek Police Department or Sheriff ' s Office and ask that they leave after a second such occurrence. 2 . Morehouse wants the neighborhood to help provide funds to pay the homeless to assist in keeping the neighborhood clean. 3 . Morehouse will instruct its guests to have parked cars adhere to traffic regulations in the neighborhood. 4 . Morehouse will provide a monitoring by its representatives of the shopping center to discourage panhandling. 5 . The neighbors will continue to call the police, as well as Morehouse representatives, when there are problems either in the street or at the shopping center. A great part of the discussion on this matter has centered on the question that the neighbors and merchants want addressed, is the quasi-public nature of Morehouse and whether the County has the obligation as part of its jurisdictional authority to regulate how Morehouse conducts behavior on its property. One of the major social problems affecting the quality of life in the 1990 ' s is homelessness . Homelessness is not the result of a single condition or public policy. It is not a mandated function of specific regulations that asks that the homeless problem be addressed, but one which is addressed by each individual jurisdiction' s governing board or council ' s policy. The County is under no legal obligation to provide shelter or food to anyone. The facilities it operates in Richmond and Pittsburg are due to a program implemented to carry out a Board of Supervisors ' policy. Morehouse is not a part of any program endorsed or supported by the Board. Morehouse is a private residence and as such the County' s authority is limited to its ability to regulate actions on private property. Questions have been raised on the County' s ability to limit or restrict the number of unrelated individuals who make up a household and reside in structures on private property. Staff concludes that, based on the case entitled (City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson/27 Cal . 3rd 123) , in the absence of a clear threat to the public health, safety and welfare, local ordinances or similar actions designed to limit or restrict the number of unrelated individuals who make up a household and reside in structures are unconstitutional and are unenforceable. There have been other allegations that involved 1) referrals by the County and city to Morehouse; 2 ) criminal activity at Morehouse; 3) repeated traffic violations and parking congestion around the Morehouse property and 4) that the Morehouse/Humore, Inc. act as a cover for numerous for-profit foundations . -4- Staff review of these allegations have led to the following conclusions : Referrals There appears to have been some confusion due to a lack of formal written policy on county deputy sheriffs making referrals or taking individuals to the Morehouse property. Because of the individual initiative of a few officers, who found no space available at existing shelters, a few referrals were made to Morehouse. The Sheriff has formally instructed his officers that Morehouse is not a recognized homeless shelter. Therefore, it is not to be used as an alternative to existing policies and procedures to deal with homeless persons . Criminal Activity Both County Sheriff and city police have reported on the increased response of law enforcement at and around Morehouse as well as the Palos Verdes Mall . The Sheriff reports indicate cases of trespassing, disturbing the peace, malicious mischief and petty theft. The Walnut Creek police have indicated the same types of problems, as well as some individual cases for warrant arrest, drug possession, public drunkenness and assault and battery. However, all of these cases cover instances which are seen as misdemeanors and are not directly attributable to Morehouse 's operation. At this time neither agency has a sufficient factual basis to begin a criminal investigation of Morehouse. Traffic Morehouse and its guests have had a demonstrated impact on traffic patterns and parking around its property. The California Highway Patrol will be contacted to actively enforce parking violations and traffic regulations in the unincorporated area around Morehouse. This should be done jointly with the Sheriff ' s parking enforcement cadets to ensure that there are no violations of the 72-hour limitation on parked vehicles . In addition, all vehicles identified as abandoned are to be tagged and towed as soon as a towing company can be contracted by the County. Also, the Public Works Department is being requested to. investigate whether other parking regulations should be reviewed and placed into effect. This should cover the ability of the County to have permit parking considerations in the unincorporated areas addressed in this report. Foundations and Non-Profit Corporations Through our investigations involving the State Attorney General ' s Office it has been determined that three corporations exist at the Morehouse/Humore, Inc. address . They are known as : 1) Lafayette Morehouse, 2 ) Humore, Inc. and 3) The Private Sector. At this point County staff is continuing its investigations as to whether any of these three corporations are performing activities on the property which violate zoning ordinances . Staff is not able at this point to definitely conclude such violations are occurring. The County Administrator, Community Development and County Counsel, after investigating the comments, allegations and reports find that at this time, no conclusive enforcement is possible which will totally address all of the concerns expressed by the neighbors involved in this matter. The concern of the neighbors that the activity conducted at Morehouse is a quasi-public use and therefore subject to land use regulation by the County is not supported by evidence currently available to County staff . -5- There are concerns which still require additional investigation and more in-depth substantiation by the County Administrator, County Counsel, Community Development, Health, Sheriff, Public Works and the Walnut Creek Police Department. Another avenue for resolution is the consideration of an independent third party mediator to address concerns of neighbors and Morehouse. Repeated staff site visits to Morehouse have found minor violations or problems which are being addressed by the removal of brush and grass , litter control and the close communication with law enforcement. cc : CAO Building Inspection Community Development Consolidated Fire Sheriff District Attorney County Counsel Public Works Health Services ATTACHMENT ,lune 9 , 1992, Item No. 2. 4 Second Interim Report on Review of Issue concerning Morehouse/Humore/Inc. SPEAKERS'- LIST Ken Boasso, 1880 Holland Drive, Walnut Creek; Ronald A. and Terri Wetter, 1711 Hustonwood Court, Walnut Creek; Adrienne and Dave Holland, 1444 Huston Road, Lafayette; Susan and Richard Rose, 1476 Huston Road, Lafayette; W. Dan Fargo, 1408 Huston Road, Walnut Creek; Alan L. Isaacson, 1719 Hustonwood Court, Walnut Creek; Anne Sudweeks, 1400 Huston Road, Walnut Creek; S. M. Skaggs, P. O. Box V, Walnut Creek; Lauchlin Divine, 1420 Huston Road, Walnut Creek; and Paul Kimura, 1451 Huston Road, Walnut Creek.