Some Progress in Narconon Hearing

This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press on Thursday, October 5,
2006.

LOS ANGELES - 
The county's Regional Planning Commission moved toward a compromise
Wednesday on a proposed drug rehab facility opposed by many of its
would-be neighbors in Leona Valley.

After nearly three hours of testimony, the commission continued the
hearing until Jan. 3 but indicated its desire to approve the project
with a combination of conditions suggested by county staff and the Leona
Valley Town Council.

Narconon Southern California, which has ties to Scientology, proposes a
residential facility for 66 adult clients at the Bouquet Canyon
location, which was formerly a boarding school.

The proposal was approved by the planning commission in March, but
Commissioner Pat Modugno said the large amount of opposition from local
residents in the ensuing months changed his mind about the initial
approval.

"I don't believe at this point the case we heard before is the case we
have today," said Modugno, an appointee of Supervisor Michael D.
Antonovich, whose 5th district includes the Antelope Valley. "I also
read carefully the conditions from the Town Council  and we need to
look at those more carefully.

"I'd like to see this approved in some nature, but certainly far more
restrictive. Let's have it come back here and let's focus on the
conditions  and structure it as much more of a compromise."

The Town Council's recommended conditions include downsizing the project
to 36 clients, installing 8-foot-tall security fencing, requiring
24-hour independent security staff, prohibiting visitors and requiring
bridges over Bouquet Canyon Creek for the primary and secondary accesses
to the facility.

Commissioner Esther Valadez suggested the Town Council's conditions be
reviewed by the relevant county departments for their input.

Following the commission's March approval, the Board of Supervisors
conducted a hearing on the project in July, but sent it back to the
commission because of new concerns regarding road safety, Fire
Department access, flood protection and drainage.

In response to some of those concerns, the Department of Public Works
recommended the addition of a left-turn pocket and deceleration and
acceleration lanes near the facility.

About 60 people turned out Wednesday in favor of the proposal, with a
handful from the areas surrounding the facility. Some 20 nearby
residents opposing the project also attended the hearing, along with one
man who lives near another Narconon facility.

On Wednesday, Leona Valley Town Council member William Elliott said the
plan does not have adequate buffering or security, and residents worry
about break-ins, stolen cars and other types of crime from clients who
might walk out of the facility.

Also, he disputed the contention of county staff that the type of
services provided by Narconon are needed in the area, since multiple
drug rehabilitation facilities already exist nearby.

"We have one (rehab) bed for every five residents," Elliott said. "We
are over-served and we don't believe we need this."

Also, residents worry about the adequacy of the location's septic tanks
and water quality, said Elliott, who said 85% of respondents to a
community survey oppose the project.

Other opponents said Wednesday that Narconon representatives gave
inconsistent testimony regarding their other California facilities, and
pointed out violations substantiated by the state's Department of
Alcohol and Drug Programs from those other locations.

Chet Kalinowski said he lives near Narconon's Warner Springs rehab
center in San Diego County, and has had numerous trespassers on his
property from the facility.

But not all in the area are opposed. The Lakes Town Council has taken a
supportive position, said member Norman Judd.

The Green Valley Town Council has not taken a position, and Lu Bole, who
serves on that body, supports the project.

"I feel they will be extremely good neighbors," Bole said of Narconon,
adding that she was impressed by the organization after she visited the
Warner Springs facility. "It's the wild (drug) abusers who are
dangerous, not those seeking treatment."

Narconon officials say clients pay about $20,000 for several months of
treatment, and are motivated to succeed.

"These are not violent criminal types; they are people who have made bad
choices and want to get well and become contributing members of
society," Narconon representative Tim Riley said.

Narconon President Clark Carr and Riley said downsizing the facility
wouldn't be feasible, and adding the security fencing would be
unattractive and potentially hazardous during a natural disaster by
entrapping residents.

They said road improvements weren't necessary because Bouquet Canyon's
bad accidents have not occurred near the facility entrance and staff
would be entering and leaving at off-peak hours.

They said they would comply with conditions imposed by the county, and
accept the conditions already proposed by county staff members."

====