Residential Housing for Prisoners Is Opposed : Studio City: Elderly tenants of a retirement complex would be replaced by nonviolent lawbreakers in a work-furlough program. But a planning official says the location is wrong.

A controversial plan to convert a Studio City retirement home into a residence for prisoners participating in a work-furlough program has been rejected by a city planning official, who found the proposed Ventura Boulevard site ill-suited to a neighborhood with nearby houses.

“Although the proposed facility would serve a beneficial purpose to the public at large, such purpose could be served as well or better in a nonresidential setting,” hearing examiner Richard M. Takase wrote in a recommendation to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.

The commission is scheduled to vote on the issue Thursday at the Van Nuys Woman’s Club.

Takase’s recommendation was based on an Aug. 20 hearing during which about 20 Studio City residents and business owners voiced concern about convicted criminals in their neighborhood.

Carl E. Curtis, Los Angeles County’s work-furlough director, said Tuesday that he would still urge the commission to approve the Studio City program, which would be run by a private, Long Beach firm called Working Alternatives. The facility, part of an effort to ease crowding in the County Jail, would be the second of its kind if approved.

“I think their fears are unfounded,” Curtis said. “We carefully screen the individuals who get into work furlough. They are not dangerous individuals.”

Under the proposal, elderly residents of the Ventura Retirement Villa at 11201 Ventura Blvd. would be replaced by nonviolent lawbreakers.

The program would allow the participants, mostly convicted of misdemeanors, to continue working while serving their sentences, and make jail cells available for more serious offenders.

Participants would be screened by the county Probation Department and approved by a judge. They would be allowed to leave the facility only for their jobs and would be closely monitored by staff and routinely tested for drugs or alcohol.

However, they would not be under lock and key, Curtis said.

Takase, in issuing his recommendation against the plan, noted the fears of area residents and the fact that an estimated 63 participants--most of them convicted drunk drivers who have lost their licenses--would have contact with the public at neighborhood bus stops.

Takase also found that the 146-bed retirement home lacked adequate parking for a work-furlough program.

The home has 49 parking spaces--not enough for an estimated 70 driving participants plus work-furlough staff, he said.

Takase added that the county’s first privately run work-furlough program, opened early this year at 89th and Main streets in South Los Angeles, had been a drug-rehabilitation center and halfway house for paroled inmates for 12 years. Its conversion to a more restrictive work-furlough program, in which residents’ freedom to come and go is limited, was welcomed by the neighborhood as an improvement, he wrote.

Polly Ward, president of the Studio City Residents Assn., welcomed his conclusions.

“The problem with the program is not the program itself, but they wanted to place it in an inappropriate location,” Ward said. “I’m very pleased.”