WHERE’S WALDO? WHERE ARE THE ‘STAFF’ TREATING ADDICTS?
Where are the ‘staff’ treating addicts in licensed facilities in Newport Beach? From the listing of rehabs homes in Newport (see left at "List of Newport Rehabs"), it appears there are NO STAFF at 21 of the 24 properties licensed. There can’t be, or they would violate occupancy restrictions! How can that be? The Fire Marshal’s ‘Fire Inspection Report’ set total occupancy at each property. Yet, 88% of rehabs use the total occupancy as their ‘bed capacity’ or ‘treatment capacity’. So where are the staff? Who’s providing treatment if there is no staff? And if they are treating addicts at another location, then NO ONE supervises these houses? This is even more alarming! An ADP state dept official, Mr. David Feinberg, confirmed 90% of addicts in these homes hold ‘criminal-convictions’! So why are 21/24 or 88% of facilities completely UNSTAFFED? 88% of all licensed rehab homes in Newport are unstaffed, and contain 90% criminally convicted addicts? Think about it….. Just who IS running this circus in Newport? It appears foolhardy, at best, (criminally negligent, as worst) for Newport officials to allow these homes to continue operating A SINGLE DAY MORE without appropriate staffing, particularly in light of the overwhelming percentage of addicts holding criminal convictions.
RECOMMENDATION: REDUCE ‘CLIENT CAPACITY’ TO INCLUDE ‘TRUE STAFF NUMBERS’ (BASED ON OFFICIAL ADP DOCUMENTS) AND REISSUE ALL ‘FIRE INSPECTION REPORTS’. REQUIRE PERIODIC FIRE MARSHAL INSPECTIONS OF ALL FACILITIES TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE. City Fire Marshal should immediately contact Calif. Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) and request ADP’s ‘file copy’ of the staffing report/list submitted by each of the rehab operators. Each rehab operator made an official statement of staffing (numbers and names) to obtain their current state license (or renewal) from ADP. That report, an official document of the state, should be used to adjust each property’s ‘client capacity’ DOWN to accurately and safely include the staff number filed officially with ADP.
STAFFING DECEPTION & OVER OCCUPANCY DANGER
We can assure you, when rehab operators apply for, or renew, a license with California's Dept. of Alcohol & Drug Programs (ADP) they MUST include a Staffing Report. There is a disconnect between what the Fire Marshal is being told by these operators regarding occupancy & staff, and what they are submitting in their application to obtain/renew state licensure from ADP.
For example, Narconon Inc., at 1810 W. Oceanfront, received an approved Fire Inspection Report for 27 occupancy for their 2004 renewal. Yet, they ALSO submitted a staff list of 29 full time staff to ADP for a renewal license, at the very same time! How can they have had a total occupancy of 27, with a staff of 29? That means they were over- occupancy by 2 staff, and treating NO addicts? Do you really believe that? Or, are these operators telling the Fire Marshal one thing, telling the state ADP another, and violating both requirements? It is evident that rehab operators are attempting to place as many ‘clients’ in a facility (and ignore necessary staffing numbers) in a blatant attempt to undermine and violate the occupancy established by the Fire Marshal. Why? To make as much money as possible. These actions endanger not only these properties, but adjoining and neighboring ones as well.
RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE AN ADP ‘STAFFING REPORT’ PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF ‘FIRE INSPECTION REPORT’ Fact: Each new and renewing (2 yrs.) rehab operator must get an approved ‘Fire Inspection Report’ from the city’s Fire Marshal. The approval of a “Fire Inspection Report” should only be completed when a rehab operator includes the ‘Staffing Report’ to be submitted to ADP. The Fire Marshal should attached the ‘Staffing Report’ TO the ‘Fire Inspection Report’ and confirm with ADP that such combined paperwork was, indeed, submitted by the rehab operator. The Fire Marshal must verify and assure that the rehab operator did NOT change (or remove) this combined paperwork when it was submitted to ADP.
YES, the city has a right to enforce ‘local use’ provisions. Neither ADP policy (nor ‘handicapped discrimination’ threats) should deter local city authorities from using and enforcing their full local zoning authority.