Received after Agenda Printed
May 9, 2023
Non -Agenda Item
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey. Jennifer; Rieff. Kim
Subject: FW: Council Meeting May 9, 2023 RE: Proposed Social Rehabilitation Facility at 1585 Miramar Drive Date: May 09, 2023 1:08:51 PM
Attachments: CPN CDSS Letter Mental Health Collective 11.17.22.12df Documents.zio
From: Holly Bradford
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 1:08:17 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Mitchell Bradford ; Holly Bradford
Subject: Council Meeting May 9, 2023 RE: Proposed Social Rehabilitation Facility at 1585 Miramar Drive [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and thank you for the opportunity to hear and address our concerns regarding the impact of this proposed SRF in our neighborhood of Peninsula Point. I am a homeowner and neighbor of 1585 Miramar Drive. Our home backs up to 1585, our garage is approx. 20 feet from this garage. We share a back alley and our upstairs bathroom and bedrooms directly face the upstairs bedroom windows of this home. We can see inside the windows there and they can likely see inside ours. If someone yells, we can hear it. If someone smokes, we can smell it.
We live in very close proximity. Our immediate neighbors are all distinctly aware of this dynamic and work to maintain peace, keep disturbances at a minimum, limit barking dogs and excessive noise. We are all accountable to one another and we rely on our local Council to support and maintain the laws and ordinances protecting the safety and quality of life in our neighborhood.
Our concern is the lack of effective governance from the City of Newport Beach to prevent those who are abusing the rules when applying for State licensing of group homes specifically SRF's. The proposed licensee, Acera Health, LLC is well known to this community and Council, this group and others have been referred to publicly in several instances for previous operation violations incurred at other local treatment facilities. There are letters on the City website stating these concerns written by Assemblywoman Petrie -Norris. I have spoken to the Department of Social Services State Licensing office in the County of Orange and they are aware of Acera Health and others who are taking advantage of loop holes for licensing approval of residences of 6 bed and under facilities. They see the repeated practice of gaining license to treat in residential neighborhoods like ours, and even admitting to me candidly that they operate specifically within the 6 bed and under license and avoid commercial areas in order to pass fire code inspections.
My concern today is not just for the lack of accountability for licensing whereas Acera Health is exploiting the lack of regulation but also for the lack of a medically professional standard of clinical care that is significantly absent. How is the treatment in a group home like 1585 Miramar Drive effective in treating and protecting the growing number in our population who are vulnerable and in need of quality care when those licensed are reported for operating with repeated violations and clear business practices to exploit loop holes and gain income received from insurance claims while overpaying greedy landlords? What is the best environment for these people that will yield the best outcome? Our highly dense neighborhood and this run
down rental house is definitely not the place. Acera Health is definitely not the answer. 1585 Miramar Drive has been vacant with the last renters breaking their lease and moving out early due to water leaking and substandard quality of improvements. There are likely many issues with this property that could be detected through a fire or city building code inspection.
As neighbors of this property can attest, the level of professional construction is questionable and there were instances where the construction activity was halted due to our complaint that no roofing improvements be made on a Sunday morning at 7:00 am.
We have many questions as to how this proposed SRF would operate, all women, all men, transgender? How are the people monitored overnight and on weekends, can they leave? How long do they stay for treatment? Is medication administered? What type of substance use disorder and dual diagnosis? Why as neighbors are we not notified? What rights to safety and quality of life do we have for our families and to protect our children from the potential threat of violence right next door?
The impact of a group home is concerning on many different levels, not just potential threat for safety of nearby residents, successful treatment of patients but also, in our area, there is a local Short Term Lodging Ordinance that prohibits short term stays of less than 30 calendar days. Please address our concerns. Work to solve this issue. Prevent this approval for license.
Our questions are relevant and thankfully not an emergency situation facing us all. How is the City of Newport Beach protecting its residents? Mental Health is a national concern and the reason for tragic and horrific violence and death. We ask the City to act now. This is in our neighborhood, it is your jurisdiction and all of our responsibility.
Thank you,
Holly Bradford
Begin forwarded message:
From: KATHY BROWN
Subject: Fwd: Social Rehabilitation Facilities
Date: May 9, 2023 at 11:24:26 AM PDT
To: Holly Bradford , Mitchell Bradford
, dennisborowskygyahoo.com, Russ Doll
, Dave Archie , BOB
YANT , Brigid O'Connor , Kim
Bibb , Bill Mathies
Begin forwarded message:
From: KATHY BROWN
Subject: Social Rehabilitation Facilities
Date: May 9, 2023 at 11:20:06 AM PDT
To: diane.dixon&asm.ca.gov, Janine.Eggersgasm.ca.gov, "Harp,
Aaron" , "Finnigan, Tara"
,
istapleton
�,newportbeachca.gov,
ianet.nguyen�&,sen.ca.gov,
gleunggnewportbeachca.gov,
woneilIgnewportbeachca.gov, nblomn_
newportbeachca.gov,
lkleinman(bnewportbeachca.gov,
rgrant&newportbeachca.gov,
ewiegandnnewportbeachca.gov,
bave1y&newportbeachca.gov,
Kathy Brown
Dear Assemblymember Diane Dixon,
Senator Janet Nguyen, Newport
Beach City Attorney Mr. Aaron Harp,
Newport Beach City Council
Members, Newport Beach City
Manager,
I attached two letters sent from our Assembly
California Legislature. The first dated May 1,
2023 from Assemblymember Diane Dixon.
The letter requests an audit of the California
Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)
and discusses the issues we as a community
are concerned regarding Drug and Alcohol
recovery programs. Thank you
Assemblymember Diane Dixon for beginning
the process. However, I am concerned the
issue of Social Rehabilitation Facilities
(SRF)was not addressed. SRF's are licensed
and supposedly monitored through California
Department of Social Services (CDSS) not
DHCS, however they are housing these
Occupants in densely populated residential
neighborhoods with no local authority for the
purpose of monitoring or for the protection of
the actual residents of the neighborhood. It
appears, in my "unprofessional" opinion the
For Profit Organizations have found a "LOOP
HOLE" to get these facilities opened as
quickly as possible with the least amount of
licensing and monitoring. So I ask ALL of
YOU.... Where is our "LOOP HOLE"?
The second letter is from Assemblywoman
Cottie Petrie -Norris dated November 17,
2022. This letter addresses the Social
Rehabilitation Facilities (SRF's) and
requesting these facilities be licensed as
Integral Facilities. If these operations are
licensed as Integral they will be required to
the Conditional Use Process of the City of
Newport Beach.
I have been advised by Mr. Aaron Harp that
the City of Newport Beach is aggressively
working on getting the licensing back into
local authority. This is an issue that
apparently needs to be changed at the State
Level. I am asking what more can you
(Assemblymembers, Senator, City Council)
do to Stop these For Profit Organizations
doing business in our Residential
Neighborhoods again - Where is our "LOOP
HOLE"?
Lastly, on May 1, 2023 I emailed the CDS S
at letusno(&,dss.ca.gov and I inquired about
the Pending License Status for 816 W.
Oceanfront and 1585 Miramar Drive. Both
locations are in Pending License Status
through Acera Health, LLC and I questioned
if they were in violation of Title 22
regulations Section 81008 - Licensing of
Integral Facilities. They responded:
Hello,
Thank you for contacting Community Care
Licensing. Upon review of your concerns,
there is no violations of Title 22 regulations.
You can direct your questions and concerns
to your local legislator regarding the facility
locations for Social Rehabilitation Facilities.
Thank you.
Aileen A.
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
California Department of Social Services
Community Care Licensing Division
Centralized Complaints & Information Bureau
LETUSNO(&DSS.CA.GOV
I have asked each and every one of you to put
me in the right direction and I offered support
to get this acted on as soon as possible and I
have been told, "This is in the hands of State
Department and our Local hands are tied".
From the response I received above from
CDSS - Your "Local Legislator" does have a
say as to the facility locations for Social
Rehabilitation Facilities.
I am asking again, please help keep our
residential neighborhoods safe and advise
what I can do as a concerned citizen.
Sincerely,
Kathy Brown
1706 Miramar Drive
Newport Beach CA
STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942849
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0072
(916) 319-2072
FAX (916) 319-2172
DISTRICT OFFICE
4100 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, UNIT 340
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 798-7221
May 1, 2023
c&SSrM 1V
Ti
cTA7F
DIANE B. DIXON
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, SEVENTY-SECOND DISTRICT
Assemblymember David Alvarez
Chair
Joint Legislative Audit Committee
1020 N Street, Room 107
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Chair Alvarez and Vice Chair Blakespear:
COMMITTEES
VICE CHAIR: ACCOUNTABILITY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
VICE CHAIR. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
APPROPRIATIONS
BANKING AND FINANCE
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
JUDICIARY
JOINT FAIRS ALLOCATION AND
CLASSIFICATION
Senator Catherine Blakespear
Vice Chair
Joint Legislative Audit Committee
10210 Street, Room 8720
Sacramento, CA 95814
I respectfully request your approval for an audit of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Our intent is to ensure that DHCS is properly licensing/regulating facilities and complying with the law so that residents of these facilities and their neighbors are protected.
On August 26, 2021, at around 4 a.m., a resident left a state licensed residential facility in the City of Newport Beach, broke down the door of a nearby home and entered the home without consent. The resident living in the home, who was not associated with the facility in any way, shot and killed this person. This home is located in a residential neighborhood that includes two state licensed facilities and two other sober living homes. The incident brought to light the need to ensure that proper care is being administered to individuals facing a crisis and that they and their neighbors, remain safe.
The City of Newport Beach has 2.63 licensed recovery beds per thousand residents, which is the highest ratio of any city in Orange County. The City contains about 2.8% of the total population of Orange County, but is host to approximately 14.6% of all licensed residential beds in the County. The City has at least 26 licensed residential alcohol and drug treatment facilities that provide a total of 213 licensed residential beds.
State law requires any person or entity that operates, establishes, manages, conducts, or maintains a facility that provides 24-hour nonmedical, residential, alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment services to adults to first obtain a valid license from the DHCS; however, facilities routinely open for business without obtaining a proper license. (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 9, Chapter 5, Section 10505(a).) Allowing these facilities to operate prior to obtaining a license or while a license is pending defeats the purpose of the law.
Furthermore, DHCS has a practice of licensing two facilities (or more), which work together as a single operation, under separate licenses rather than one single license.
Separately licensing two facilities (or more) that work in conjunction with each other to serve more than six persons is done to avoid local regulations and usurp the intent of Health and Safety Code Section 11834.23.
I ask that the audit consider, but not necessarily be limited to, the following questions with respect to residential facilities that provide nonmedical recovery, treatment, and detoxification service:
1. How often does DHCS license and/or certify adult residential non -medical alcoholism or drug recovery or treatment facilities (for six or fewer persons) under a separate license, rather than as components of a single integrated facility under a single operating license, when:
a. The separate licensed facilities are under the control and management of the same owner, operator, management company or licensee or any affiliate of any of them and the facilities are on contiguous lots; or b. The separate licensed facilities are an integral component of one operation; or
c. The client/residents of the separate licensed facilities: (i) receive services together, (ii) eat or prepare meals together; (iii) receive services from the same staff or consultants, or (iv) participate in any activity together?
2. How often is an enforcement action taken against a person or entity that operates an adult residential non -medical alcoholism or drug recovery or treatment facilities (for six or fewer persons) without a license and what penalties were imposed?
3. How often does DHCS deny a license for an adult residential non -medical alcoholism or drug recovery or treatment facilities (for six or fewer persons) and what is the basis for the denial?
4. How often does DHCS suspend or revoke a license for an adult residential non- medical alcoholism or drug recovery or treatment facilities (for six or fewer persons) and what is the basis for the suspension or revocation?
5. How often does DHCS license and/or certify adult residential non -medical alcoholism or drug recovery or treatment facilities (for six or fewer persons) on a lot not zoned for a residential use?
6. How does DHCS evaluate the overconcentration of licensed facilities within a residential neighborhood, the change in setting that overconcentration creates from residential to institutional, and the ability for clients or residents to recover in these overconcentrated institutional settings?
7. What is DHCS' process and average timeline for investigating and resolving complaints?
8. How often does DHCS inspect each licensed facility and is that inspection accomplished in person?
9. How does DHCS evaluate the effectiveness of treatment / patient care? I very much appreciate your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
&' - A. L-Z*�
Diane Dixon
cc: Assemblymember David Alvarez, Chair
Senator Catherine Blakespear, Vice Chair
Wesley Opp, Chief Consultant
Tram Troung, Principal Consultant
STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942849
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0074
(916)319-2074
FAX (916) 319-2174
DISTRICT OFFICE
19712 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 150
IRVINE, CA 92612
(949)251-0074
FAX (949) 251-0974
E-MAIL
[email protected]
November 17, 2022
AT
. STA TF
P
zU: ��y
� M
�r?4D .�l'��31
COTTIE PETRIE-NORRIS
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, SEVENTY-FOURTH DISTRICT
Kim Johnson
Director, California Department of Social Services
744 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
COMMITTEES
CHAIR: ACCOUNTABILITY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPROPRIATIONS
REVENUE AND TAXATION
VETERANS AFFAIRS
SELECT COMMITTEES
CHAIR: STUDENT DEBT
ORANGE COUNTY CHRONIC
HOMELESSNESS
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING
AND MATH
SEA LEVEL RISE AND THE CALIFORNIA
ECONOMY
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
RE: The Mental Health Collective, Newport Beach, CA — Complaints about operations without a Social Rehabilitation Facilities License Dear Director Johnson:
I am bringing to your attention an urgent matter from my constituents involving the operations of unlicensed Social Rehabilitation Facilities in the city of Newport Beach. My office has been in communication with the Department of Social Services regarding other licensed and unlicensed facilities in the same community. These current issues warrant the Department's immediate attention and investigation before making a final decision on any pending license involving The Mental Health Collective ("MHC").
The Mental Health Collective, headquartered in Newport Beach, CA, has two licensing applications pending with CDSS for Social Rehabilitation Facilities:
• 2282 Orchard Drive (306006145) — approved as of 1 1 /7/2022 • 1911 Kings Road (306006144)
• 519 Santa Ana Avenue (306006143)
Operation of Unlicensed Residential Care Facilities by The Mental Health Collective On October 26, 2022, the Newport Beach City Attorney issued a "Notice of Violation and Demand to Cease and Desist" letter to the legal representative of The Mental Health Collective regarding the unpermitted and unlawful operation of residential care facilities at the following locations:
• 2282 Orchard Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
• 1911 Kings Road, Newport Beach, CA 92663
• 519 Santa Ana Ave., Newport Beach, CA 92663
Printed on Recycled Paper
Because the facilities have been treating patients without a State license, the City Attorney has determined that The Mental Health Collective is in direct violation of the Newport Beach Municipal code (NBMC), including the following provisions of the NBMC code:
• 20.10.040. Applicability of Zoning Code
• 20.18.020. Residential Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements • 20.48.170. Residential Care Facilities
• 10.50.020. Nuisance
Despite a recent confidential settlement agreement with the City of Newport Beach, the operator has demonstrated disregard for State law, the licensing process and local ordinances.
As we understand it, these are the terms of the recent settlement agreement:
1. MHC will permanently cease operation of the residential care facility located at 1911 Kings Road on or before December 11, 2022.
2. MHC will abandon its request for a license for 1911 Kings Road if the license is not granted by December 11, 2022.
If, as of December 31, 2022, the State of California has not issued all licenses necessary for MHC to operate a residential care facility at 2282 Orchard Drive and/or 5519 Santa Ana Ave, MHC will immediately cease all operations until the State of California has issued all necessary licenses.
4. MHC will notify the City immediately when it has ceased operation at any of the three residential care facilities and allow City staff to inspect the properties.
5. MHC will not operate a residential care facility at any property in the City of Newport Beach, which does not have all legally required permits and licenses including, but not limited to, the property at 2072 Tustin Ave, Newport Beach, California 92660.
In addition to providing treatment to patients without a license, residents have filed multiple complaints regarding MHC's violations of Title 22 codes. Attached is the most recent complaint that was submitted to the CDSS on Friday, October 21, 2022. As shown, the complaint outlines a trend of violations that have still not been properly remediated.
Because of these issues, we believe CDSS should strongly consider the actions taken by the City of Newport Beach against The Mental Health Collective into its decision making on the pending license applications. The Mental Health Collective should not be operating without a license nor advertising its services to clients until it obtains a State license. These violations warrant CDSS reconsidering approval of the licenses.
The Mental Health Collective as an Integral Facility
Newport Beach residents, based on complaints, strongly believe these unlicensed facilities are operating as de facto "integral facilities," in violation of Title 22 and local ordinances.
The City of Newport Beach defines "Integral Facilities" as facilities that include, but are not limited to, the provision of housing in one facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or any other
service or services to program participants in another facility or facilities or by assigning staff or a consultant or consultants to provide services to the same program participants in more than one licensed or unlicensed facility. Residents contend that these collective facilities are operating as "Integral Facilities" with "integral uses."
Furthermore, residents believe the operator is falsely misrepresenting themselves on their State license applications, which would allow them to avoid the Conditional Use Process required for licensed Integral Facilities in the city of Newport Beach.
These credible complaints from residents in my district deserve further investigation and action by the California Department of Social Services. If you would like to discuss further, please reach out to my District Director, Michael Tou, at (949) 251-0074 or michiel.cou,'-�asm.ci.gov.
Sincerely,
CP-�A"
Cottie Petrie -Norris
California State Assembly, 74`h District
Attachments