Resilient Recovery expansion

The facility's founder and CEO shared his personal recovery story and asked for approval, noting three years of good-neighbor operation and no change to services.

The founder's father, a co-owner and registered nurse, described the facility's safety measures and asked the commission to approve.

An outreach coordinator with a partner treatment center voiced professional support for the expansion.

The facility's nurse practitioner said doubling beds wouldn't change the quality or safety of care.

An alumnus with 128 days sober credited the program with rebuilding his life and urged approval.

Owner of a partner outpatient program in North Hollywood supported the expansion as strengthening the continuum of care.

The co-founder and CFO said the business is financially ready and pledged continued responsible operation.

The program director — who also lives on Candy Cane Lane with his family — said he sees no risk to his own family and supports expansion.

The clinical director said clinical systems and staffing can safely handle more patients.

An alumnus, over two years sober, credited the program with turning his life around and supported the expansion.

A college professor and neighbor opposed the expansion, citing a SWAT incident, ambulance calls, and arguing problems grow exponentially with doubled occupancy.

A retired Air Force engineer on Clark Court said six beds is manageable but twelve would exceed single-family scale and socialize the business's risks onto neighbors.

The neighbor directly behind the facility described cigarette smoke and butts in her yard, a fugitive warrant served with sheriff access to her yard, and a client who jumped her fence; she urged denial.

A 26-year Clark Court resident said neighbors weren't told about the facility until after it opened and that twelve beds doesn't fit a residential street, citing staff cars parked on the street.

A retired Lancaster teacher noted supporters mostly benefit financially from the facility, described secret renovations and late-night deliveries, and compared doubling high-risk occupants to a failed classroom downsizing experiment; her time expired.

A neighborhood watch representative questioned the reported overdose, staffing adequacy, and whether felons from prison programs are housed there.

Speaking for her husband on Clark Court, she told the commission the expansion isn't compatible with the neighborhood and that findings for approval haven't been met, citing parking limits.

A retired NASA engineer whose home backs the facility described noise, profanity, and a metal canopy from the property that nearly struck his house in a windstorm; he asked for denial.

A Candy Cane Lane resident who supports the facility's work still opposed doubling beds, worried about clients walking away unsupervised near his three daughters.

The next-door neighbor said he never knew a rehab was beside his home, described cars blocking his sidewalk and constant unfamiliar foot traffic, and urged denial.

Drawing on decades in residential treatment work, he stressed staffing ratios and warned that a lone night staffer can't handle crises, calling it a tough decision.

Returning to finish her remarks, she detailed the facility's dual-diagnosis clientele, zoning concerns, and asked why the operator only serves privately insured clients.