UPDATE: It appears that the Anderson Community "Church" has withdrawn their participation in this endeavor.  HOWEVER, this petition will remain open and collecting signatures until the Board Meeting held on April 21st at 5:30 pm, 1887 Howard Street, Anderson, Californi.

YOUR VOICE IS STILL IMPORTANT.

The Anderson City Council must urgently address the location concerns of the Family Dynamics Resource Center's 60 Bed Youth Substance Abuse Treatment Facility to ensure both the effectiveness of the program and the community's well-being. The facility is currently proposed to be situated in an area designated as Agriculture, Rural Estate (R-E) and Low-Density Residential, which raises significant issues concerning zoning and land use restrictions. 

The importance of this issue is personal and directly affects our community and the character of our neighborhoods. California Health and Safety Code § 11834.23 dictates that facilities serving six or fewer residents are treated as single-family homes. However, with a capacity of 60 beds, this facility requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This planning requirement underscores a larger issue: a high-intensity institutional use does not align with the "Agriculture" and "Rural Estate" character that is cherished by the residents in this area. This could set a precedent for other high-intensity developments in low-density areas, ultimately eroding the very nature of these communities.

Further, the following points are rationale to investigate other options: 

1. Incompatibility with Zoning Intent
Residential zones are designed for low-density living. Introducing a 60-bed institutional facility is effectively a commercial/medical land use. This shifts the neighborhood’s character from a quiet residential area to a high-density institutional corridor, setting a precedent for future re-zoning.

2. Excessive Density and Scale
A 60-bed facility is significantly larger than a standard "group home." At this scale, the density of occupants per square foot likely exceeds the average household density of the surrounding blocks, placing an undue burden on the local environment.

3. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
Residential streets are often narrow and lack the infrastructure for high-volume transit. A facility of this size requires:

Shift-change traffic for 24/7 staffing.
Delivery trucks (food, medical supplies, laundry).
Visitor vehicles. This increased volume poses a risk to children and elderly residents who utilize the streets for walking and biking.

4. Strain on Emergency Services
A facility specializing in substance treatment may require frequent calls for medical emergencies, overdoses, or behavioral interventions. This could divert local police and EMS resources away from the broader community, increasing response times for other residents.

5. Inadequate Parking Infrastructure
Most residential plots do not have the acreage to support the parking required for dozens of staff members and visitors. This leads to overflow parking on narrow side streets, obstructing visibility for drivers and blocking access for fire trucks or trash collection.

6. Environmental and Noise Impact
With 60 residents plus staff, the noise profile changes significantly. From industrial-grade HVAC systems to outdoor recreation areas and commercial waste pickup at early hours, the "quiet enjoyment" of neighboring properties—a fundamental right of homeowners—is compromised.

7. Property Value and Marketability
While studies on this are often debated, the perception of a large institutional facility can deter prospective buyers who are specifically looking for a traditional neighborhood feel. This can lead to longer "days on market" for neighboring homes and potential loss of equity.

8. Insufficient Public Infrastructure
Residential sewer, water, and power grids are scaled for single-family homes. A 60-bed facility operates at a commercial load. Without significant (and expensive) upgrades to the local grid, the facility could cause utility strain for the entire block.

9. Lack of Proximity to Essential Services
Opposing the location isn't just about the neighborhood—it's about the patients. Residential areas often lack immediate proximity to major hospitals or public transit hubs. Placing a high-capacity facility far from these services is poor urban planning for both the residents and the patients.

10. Safety and Security Concerns
A facility of this size requires robust security protocols. Whether it is high fencing, bright security lighting (light pollution), or the presence of private security guards, these elements are visually and atmospherically inconsistent with a welcoming, residential "front porch" community.

Most importantly, the location may not be suitable for achieving the best outcomes for the youth in need of rehabilitation. These centers work best in areas conducive to peace and rehabilitation rather than places that could become contentious battlegrounds due to zoning or conflict of interest disputes. Moving it to a location better suited for such high-intensity use can ensure both the facility's success and our community's harmony.

We call upon the Anderson City Council to ensure the proposed location is not authorized and explore other viable sites for the facility that would comply with current zoning and land use regulations while also considering the community's character and needs. Relocating the facility to a suitable area not only benefits the immediate community but also ensures the effective treatment and recovery of the youth.

Stand with us by signing this petition to advocate for a considerate solution that honors both the community's values and the urgent need for youth substance abuse treatment.