Rehab Center’s Plans Upset Neighborhood

Ronald H. Banner started small in 1988, opening a modest treatment center for addicts in Rose Park, an aging Long Beach neighborhood filled with turn-of-the century bungalows.

Then he began buying the surrounding real estate, steadily building a portfolio of more than 20 buildings that were converted into treatment facilities and sober-living homes for an expanding client list. Virtually all are in the same square block.

Now Banner’s nonprofit organization, the Substance Abuse Foundation of Long Beach, wants to make improvements, increase occupancy and use 17 of the buildings to create a large treatment campus in an area that isn’t zoned for institutions. The proposal is now before the City Council.

Although Banner may think bigger is better, many of his neighbors don’t. Their aspirations for salvaging historic Rose Park and its architectural heritage have collided head-on with his ambition.

Members of the Rose Park Neighborhood Assn. and their allies say the veteran psychologist has quietly tried to secure state licenses and increase occupancy in violation of municipal codes before the city has a chance to approve anything.

“I bought a home in Rose Park because of its charm and sense of community,” said James C. Wille. “When someone can come into such a neighborhood, operate illegally and then strong-arm the city into helping them, my trust has been broken.”

So far, the opposition has prevailed. Last month, the Long Beach Planning Commission rejected measures that would have cleared the way for the treatment enclave on 7th Street between Obispo and Freeman avenues.

If approved, Banner’s plans “will overcrowd the units and result in bad living conditions that prolong or retard” the recovery process for substance abusers, the commission concluded.

Although he applauded the foundation’s efforts to help addicts, Commissioner Ed Ludloff told Banner at the agency’s April 20 meeting that he has not controlled his clients and that “there has been a little bit of bullying of the neighbors.”

“If you want to be part of the community,” Ludloff said, “you need to act like part of the community.”

The foundation, however, has appealed the decision to the City Council, setting the stage for a political showdown over the continued growth of the treatment center. The deadline for a hearing is July 18.

Banner declined to comment on the controversy, except to say that he was not aware of any serious dispute involving the foundation’s plans. He contends that only a few people in Rose Park have criticized his operations.

“We are now working with the city to find a solution where everyone comes out a winner,” Banner said.

He would not elaborate, but city officials involved with the discussions say the options include relocating some of Banner’s treatment facilities to a more suitable place.

Major Provider of Rehab Services

Today, the Substance Abuse Foundation is one of the largest providers of drug and alcohol services in Los Angeles County, handling more than 2,000 people a year in a variety of programs. Banner’s clients include members of the general public, probationers, prison parolees, mentally ill substance abusers and people infected with the AIDS virus.

They come to Banner’s cluster of buildings in Rose Park for a variety of services, including residential treatment, counseling and sober-living arrangements, where those who live in his units promise to stay drug- and alcohol-free.

“We appreciate the need for drug treatment, but we have watched an institution grow in an area that is zoned residential and commercial,” said Bry Myown, one of the leaders of the Rose Park Neighborhood Assn. “Many people have made a big investment here and they are concerned about potential impacts, like parking, traffic and changes in land use.”

Over the years, Rose Park’s residents have become increasingly sensitive to land uses that have threatened the neighborhood’s architectural history and retro atmosphere.

The neighborhood, which contains about 2,000 parcels, is bordered by 4th and 10th streets and by St. Louis and Redondo avenues. Its housing stock is predominantly Victorian and Craftsman homes erected between 1905 and 1923. Spanish colonial-style houses and apartments also were built before construction slowed during the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘50s.

When building resumed in the 1960s, developers began to alter Rose Park’s character by putting in large, boxy apartments and condominiums--a trend that continued into the 1980s.

To reverse the situation, Rose Park’s residents sought to have the area downzoned to reduce density. At their request, the city designated the neighborhood a historic district and began a stringent code enforcement program.

“The area now tends to attract homeowners who like its antique qualities,” said Ruthann Lehrer, the city’s neighborhood and historic preservation officer. “People have fought hard for the improvements and don’t want to see them eroded.”

The dispute with Banner began almost 10 years ago, as the effort to rehabilitate Rose Park got underway. Neighbors noticed that he kept buying property to expand his operation. In 1992, they complained to Councilman-elect Alan Lowenthal that the foundation was acting like an institution in an area that was not zoned for such use.

Lowenthal, now a state assemblyman, said the city attorney’s office explored whether Banner must separate his facilities and concluded that the foundation did not have to do so.

He said Banner threatened to sue the city, alleging violations of the federal Fair Housing Act if officials tried to block his expansion. The law prohibits discrimination against the disabled. No lawsuit was filed.

“After that, there was a period of relative peace,” Lowenthal said. “The area isn’t zoned for institutional uses. If he ran his operations as separate facilities, he was OK.”

Lowenthal said, however, that Banner began looking for other properties closer to downtown, but was unsuccessful and continued to buy parcels in the Rose Park area.

In December 1998, Banner first sought a zoning change and a conditional use permit to create a single campus to encompass his facilities. He wanted the city to give him control of an alley that separates his buildings, and he requested permission to build fences and a centralized dining and kitchen area.

Four months later, the planning department’s staff recommended that the commission adopt the changes. Basically, the staff said, the proposals would not “adversely affect the character, livability or appropriate development of the surrounding area.”

Banner subsequently withdrew the request and reapplied in September 1999, a month after the city passed an ordinance to help enforce federal fair housing laws. The ordinance allows changes in building and zoning requirements to ensure that the disabled have equal access to housing.

The foundation’s new request sought approval of a dining commons to serve the proposed campus and plans to increase the occupancy of five homes to more than six people each. Banner also wanted the city to drop a requirement for 10 new parking spaces. Again, city staff members recommended approval of the changes.

In letters to the city, Banner said that during open houses and meetings with the public there was little opposition to his facilities. Rather than being a detriment to the community, he said, the foundation and his clients have worked to improve Rose Park by regularly participating in public service activities.

But Banner’s opponents say they have remained silent over the years because the federal government has investigated and prosecuted individuals who spoke out against facilities for the disabled--a group protected by the Fair Housing Act. Drug addicts and alcoholics fall under the definition of disabled in the law. They also said that Banner has threatened to sue them.

Court Ruling Emboldened Foes

In December 1998, the picture changed. A federal judge in Northern California ruled that investigators for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development violated the 1st Amendment rights of three people in Berkeley who wrote articles, talked to public officials and filed a lawsuit in an attempt to stop a housing project for the mentally ill.

Emboldened by the decision, dozens of people, including property owners and advocates for the disabled, have intensified their opposition to Banner’s plans over the past 16 months.

“It is clear he is trying to create a large group home, where the law only provides for small treatment centers,” said Daniel P. Bleiberg, a partner in several apartment ventures in Rose Park. “No one ever envisioned someone buying up so many homes. The zoning should be adhered to.”

Opponents say that five of the foundation’s licensed facilities now exceed occupancy limits and should be at least half a mile apart under city zoning requirements. Banner’s request for the changes even states that he wants to legalize several group homes operating with more than the six occupants allowed by zoning regulations.

“It is unique to have a cluster of licensed care facilities applying for these changes,” said Harold Simkins, the city’s senior planner. “He already has a campus-type setting. Some of the buildings exceed the zoning regulations.”

Simkins said the restrictions will not be enforced until Banner has completed his appeal to the council or fails to reach a solution during ongoing discussions with the city.

Opponents also say that Banner’s desire to create the campus conflicts with the intent of federal fair housing laws: the integration of disabled people into mainstream residential life.

“I don’t like institutional settings. They isolate people,” said Ben Rockwell, vice president of the local chapter of Californians for Disability Rights, a statewide organization with about 1,000 members. “Treatment centers and sober living homes should be scattered throughout the city, so people are in normal environments taking part in the community.”

On April 20, the Planning Commission reversed its staff’s recommendations and denied Banner’s request. In a written report, the commission stated that other housing and rehabilitation facilities that did not exceed occupancy limits were available in the city.

If the request were granted, the commission said, Banner’s facilities would “essentially become an institutional compound” inconsistent with residential uses in Rose Park.

“The intent of [federal] law is to try to integrate people with disabilities into a residential setting, but the way he has acquired so many houses, so close together, in my mind, is not accomplishing the intent of the law,” said Deputy City Atty. Mike Mais.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Treatment Campus Proposal

The Substance Abuse Foundation of Long Beach wants to create a campus-like atmosphere for its properties (shaded in black) along 7th Street between Obispo and Freeman avenues. The plan has run into opposition from community groups and the Planning Commission.