HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-12; City Council; ; Report on Recovery-Based Group Homes from the Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee on Sober Living Homes~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
May 12, 2020
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Jeff Murphy, Community Development Director
jeff.murphy@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-2783
CA Review MK
Subject: Report on Recovery-Based Group Homes from the Ad-Hoc City Council
Subcommittee on Sober Living Homes
Recommended Action
The Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee on Sober Living Homes recommends that the City
Council receive the report entitled "Recovery-Based Group Homes" (Exhibit 1) and direct staff
to pursue the actions described in the Conclusion section of that report.
Executive Summary
Following a Jan. 29, 2020, public meeting with the ad-hoc City Council Subcommittee on Sober
Living Homes, staff prepared a report (Exhibit 1) that provides an overview of the purpose and
types of recovery~based group homes, the legal framework that protects these homes and the
permitting restrictions that limit the city's ability to regulate them. The report also includes a
· summary of the questions and concerns raised by residents during and following the January 29
meeting, city staff's responses to those concerns and an overview of the actions the city can
pursue to help bring attention to the issue.
On April 17, 2020, staff met with the ad..:hoc subcommittee to review the report and discuss its
findings and conclusions. Given the restrictions in current state and federal law, as well as
the current lack of legal clarity in the substantially undecided California case law
concerning recovery-based group homes and specifically sober living homes, the city is
limited in what it can legally do to address many of the concerns raised by the community.
The subcommittee recommended that the item be scheduled for City Council consideration
with a recommendation that the City Council receive the report and direct staff to take the
actions described in the conclusion of the report.
Discussion
Background
On Feb. 19, 2019, the City Council received an informational staff report on sober living homes
to allow for discussion of concerns raised by Carlsbad residents and potential actions to address
those concerns. Following the presentation of the report, the City Council approved a minute
motion directing the creation of a subcommittee to discuss sober living homes. On July 23,
2019, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the formation of a City Council ad-hoc
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 1 of 227
subcommittee on sober livings homes, with council member Blackburn and then-council
member Hamilton as members. The subcommittee was tasked with working with staff to
engage community stakeholders, listen to and discuss their concerns and recommendations
regarding sober living homes and recommend potential regulatory and legislative strategies for
the City Council to pursue.
On Dec. 2, 2019, staff meet with the ad-hoc subcommittee to discuss the logistics of a
community meeting on sober living homes, including the date, time, location and format. Staff
also discussed approaches to outreach and educational information that should be developed
and made available at the meeting.
On Jan. 29, 2020, city staff held a public meeting to solicit comments and questions on
recovery-based group homes and sober living homes. To maximize participation, staff invited
residents who previously expressed an interest on the issue to attend the public meeting. The
meeting was also advertised on the city's website and the Nextdoor social media platform, and
flyers were placed at various high-traffic areas in city facilities.
Twenty-one residents attended. They shared their concerns and experiences with recovery-
based group homes, specifically sober living homes in their neighborhoods. Other members of
the public were given until Feb. 12, 2020, to submit additional comments on the topic of group
homes.
Findings and recommendations
Following that February 2020 deadline, staff prepared a report (Exhibit 1) that provides an
overview of the purpose and types of recovery-based group homes, the legal framework that
protects these homes, the permitting restrictions that limit the city's ability to regulate sober
living homes and summary responses to the concerns raised by residents during and following
the January 29 meeting.
On April 17, 2020, staff met with the ad-hoc subcommittee to review the report and discuss its
findings and conclusions. Following the discussion, the ad-hoc subcommittee found that given
the restrictions in current state and federal law, as well as the current lack of legal clarity in
the substantially undecided California case law concerning recovery-based group homes
and specifically sober living homes, the city is limited in what it can legally do to address
many of the concerns raised by the community. However, there are a few things the city
could do to help bring attention to the issue :
• Add the issue to the Carlsbad Legislative Platform. Working with such agencies as the
League of California Cities and with city lobbyists, the city can encourage its state and
federal representatives to develop new legislation that addresses the adverse impacts
associated with recovery-based group homes in residential neighborhoods.
• Track potential changes resulting from lawsuits. City staff can monitor recent and
pending court decisions and report back to the City Council on the limitations that
courts would likely impose on city regulation of recovery-based group homes.
2
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 2 of 227
• Continue enforcement. The city can continue to respond to complaints and calls from
residents near recovery-based group homes and enforce those rules and regulations
that apply to all single-family residences, such as unpermitted construction, public
nuisances, noise and trash violations.
As noted above, the ad-hoc subcommittee recommended the City Council receive the report
(Exhibit 1) and direct staff to pursue the actions described in its Conclusion section, which are
listed above.
Next Steps
Following the City Council meeting, and with the direction of the City Council, staff may
implement and pursue the actions described in conclusions of the attached report (Exhibit 1)
and described in brief above.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
This is an informational report so, in keeping with Public Resources Code section 21065, this
action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental
Quality Act in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and
therefore does not require further environmental review.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. Recovery-Based Group Homes: A report on the purpose, challenges and opportunities
related to residences that provide housing and support for people recovering from addiction
3
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 3 of 227
RECOVERY-BASED
GROUP HOMES
Exhibit 1
A REPORT ON THE PURPOSE, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
RELATED TO RESIDENCES THAT PROVIDE HOUSING AND SUPPORT
FOR PEOPLE RECOVERING FROM ADDICTION
City of Carlsbad
Community Development Department I April 2020
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 4 of 227
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 5 of 227
Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose & Types .............................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Types of Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 3
Sober Living Homes (SLHs) ....................................................................................................... 3
Residential Care Facilities (RCFs) ............................................................................................. 3
Professional Care Facility (PCFs) .............................................................................................. 4
Laws Governing Group Homes ........................................................................................................ 5
The Basics .................................................................................................................................... 5
Federal Acts & Laws ..................................................................................................................... 5
Federal Fair Housing Act .......................................................................................................... 5
Federal Americans with Disabilities Act.. ................................................................................. 6
State Acts & Laws ........................................................................................................................ 6
California Fair Employment and Housing Act ................................................................ , ......... 6
California Planning and Zoning Law ......................................................................................... 7
California Caselaw ....................................................................................................................... 7
City of Santa. Barbara v. Adamson ........................................................................................... 7
Broad moor San Clemente Homeowners Assn. v. Nelson ......................................................... 7
City of Los Angeles v. Department of Health ........................................................................... 7
Local & State Permitting Limitations ............................................................................................... 9
City Business License ............................................................................................................... 9
State License ............................................................................................................ .' ............... 9
City Ministerial Permit ........................................................................................................... 10
City Discretionary Permit ....................................................................................................... 10
Attempts to Change the Laws ........................................................................................................ 11
California Lawsuits Affecting RGHs ............................................................................................ 11
City of Newport Beach ........................................................................................................... 11
City of Costa Mesa ................................................................................................................. 12
Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Meeting on SLHs ....................................................................................... 15
Public Concerns & Comments ................................................................................................... 15
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 6 of 227
Legal Concerns ....................................................................................................................... 16
Building & Zoning Concerns ................................................................................................... 17
Safety Questions .................................................................................................................... 18
Ad Hoc Committee Questions ............................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 19
City's Legislative Program .......................................................................................................... 19
Changes Resulting from Lawsuits .............................................................................................. 19
Continued Enforcement .............................................................................................................. 19
Attachments
#1 HUD/DOJ -Laws, Practices and Application of Fair Housing Act
#2 League of CA Cities Challenges of Implementing ADA & FHA
#3 Informational Staff Report on Sober Living Homes dated Feb. 19, 2019
#4 City Council Minutes dated Feb. 19, 2019 (Minute Motion)
#5 Staff Report and City Council Resolution #2019-134 dated Jul. 23, 2019
#6 City of Carlsbad Group Living Arrangements Handout
#7 Subcommittee Meeting Minutes dated Jan . 29, 2020 & Public Comments Received
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 7 of 227
Executive Summary
The City of Carlsbad occasionally receives concerns about group living arrangements, particularly when
the living arrangements are recovery focused and located in single-family residential neighborhoods.
There are various types of group homes, each serving a slightly different purpose and need. Some
examples include sober living homes, residential care facilities, community care facilities and outpatient
treatment centers. Collectively, they are often referred to as "recovery-based group homes" (RGHs).
Sober living homes (SLHs), which are the most common RGHs and often the subject of concern from
neighborhood residents, are recovery focused living environments for individuals attempting to abstain
(typically) from alcohol and drugs. Often found in single-family homes in existing and established
neighborhoods, SLHs do not provide medical treatment services and therefore are exempt from state
licensing requirements that would otherwise apply to drug treatment facilities. For this same reason,
regulation of SLHs by local governments is limited.
On Feb. 19, 2019, the City Council received an informational staff report on SLHs to allow for discussion
of concerns raised by Carlsbad residents and potential actions to address those concerns. Following the
presentation of this report, the City Council approved a Minute Motion directing the creation of a
subcommittee to discuss SLHs. On Jul. 23, 2019, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the
formation of a City Council ad-hoc subcommittee on sober livings homes (Blackburn, Hamilton). The
subcommittee was tasked with working with staff to engage community stakeholders, to listen to and
discuss their concerns and recommendations regarding SLHs and to recommend potential regulatory
and legislative strategies for the City Council to pursue.
On Jan. 29, 2020, City staff held a public meeting to solicit comments on group homes. To maximize
participation, residents who previously expressed an interest on the issue were invited to attend the
community meeting. Roughly 21 residents attended, where they shared their concerns and experiences
with group homes, specifically SLHs located within their neighborhoods. The community was given until
Feb. 12, 2020, to submit final comments on the topic of group homes.
Following the February deadline, staff prepared this report which provides an overview of the
purpose and types of group homes, the legal framework that protects the homes, the permitting
restrictions that liniit the city's ability to regulate SLHs and summary responses to the concerns raised by
residents during and following the January 29th meeting.
On April 17, 2020, staff met with the ad-hoc subcommittee to review the report and discuss its findings
and conclusions. The ad-hoc subcommittee found that given the restrictions in current state and
federal law, as well as the current lack of legal clarity demonstrated by the substantially undecided
California case law concerning group homes and specifically SLHs, the city is limited in what it can
legally do to address many of the concerns raised by the community. However, there are a few
things the city should pursue to help bring attention to the issue:
✓ Carlsbad Legislative Platform. Working with agencies like the League of California Cities and
city lobbyists, the city can encourage its state and federal representatives to develop new
legislation that addresses the adverse impacts associated with group homes in residential
neighborhoods.
1
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 8 of 227
✓ Changes resulting from lawsuits. The city can monitor recent and pending court decisions
and report back to the City Council the limitations that courts would likely impose on city
regulation of group homes.
✓ Continued enforcement. The city can continue to respond to complaints and calls from
residents near group homes and enforce those rules and regulations that apply to all single-
family residences (i.e., unpermitted construction, public nuisances, noise, trash}.
The ad-hoc subcommittee recommended that the item be scheduled for City Council consideration with
a recommendation that the City Council receive the report and direct staff to pursue the actions
described in the section entitled "Conclusion," which are also listed above.
2
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 9 of 227
Purpose & Types
Purpose
Recovery-based group homes (RGHs) is a broad term describing a sober, safe, and healthy living
environment that promotes recovery from people suffering from addictions such as alcohol, drug,
eating, gambling and other disorders. RGHs range from independent, resident-run homes to staff-
managed facilities where counseling and medical services are provided. Recovery housing of this
type has been associated with numerous positive outcomes including:
• Decreased substance use • Reduced probability of relapse/reoccurrence
• Lower rates of incarceration • Increased employment
• Higher income • Improved family functioning
Types of Facilities
· There are varying types of RGHs (i.e., sober living homes, residential care facilities, professional care
facilities, outpatient treatment center) of which some are allowed in residential homes and residential
neighborhoods. There are two types of RGHs that have been the focus of community concerns and
discussed in prior City Council meetings and the ad-hoc City Council subcommittee meeting: sober
living homes and residential care facilities.
Sober Living Homes (SLHs)
Sober living homes (SLHs) are a type of RGH that provide housing to occupants recovering from
dependence, either during and/or after outpatient addiction treatment. Length of stay is self-
determined and can last for several months to years. Most SLHs contain six orfewerpersons, but
that number can increase, depending upon the maximum occupancy of the home. Occupants of a
SLH operate as a "family-unit," often sharing resources and experiential advice about how to access
health care and social services, find employment, budget and manage finances, handle legal
problems and build life skills. However, because no professional treatment services (medical or
non-medical) are provided on site, SLHs are classified as residential housing, just as any other
residence in a residential neighborhood. The only distinction is that SLH occupants identify as
recovering addicts.
Residential Care Facilities (RCFs)
Residential care facilities (RCFs) are like a SLH with the exception that they offer non-medical
treatment/counseling programs in a 24-hour residential setting. Examples of non-medical services .
include the following:
• Individual Counseling Sessions
• Group Counseling Sessions
• Educational sessions
• Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery Counseling
3
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 10 of 227
RCFs typically have a life skill development emphasis and residents receive clinical services outside
the home. Most often there is a facility manager in this type of recovery focused group home as well
a certified staff or case managers, with service hours provided in the house.
Professional Care Facility (PCFs)
Professional care facilities (PCFs} are a type of facility that provides medical and non-medical
treatment in a 24-hour residential setting. Examples of medical services include intensive, 24-hour-
a-day services delivered in settings other than a hospital including primary medical care and medication-
assisted treatment (MAT}. PCFs are often mistaken as RCFs.
4
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 11 of 227
Laws Governing Group Homes
The allowance and regulation of RGHs can be traced back to various federal and state statutes as
well as case law. Below is a high-level summary of the limitations and restrictions placed on local
governments from regulating RGHs, with additional detail on each referenced statute and case
provided later in this section.
The Basics
While the laws that govern RGHs are complex, some of the key limitations placed on local cities to
regulate RGHs, particularly SLHs, can be summarized as follows:
• Individuals in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction are defined as "disabled."1
• Local governments are prohibited from imposing regulations that discriminate based on a
disability, including restrictions on housing.2
• Local governments are required to treat groups of related and unrelated people identically
when they function as one household or "family unit".3
• Local governments cannot limit the number of unrelated adults that act as a family unit
from residing together in a household.4
• The number of people who live together as a family unit in a single-family home
(occupancy} is based on the square footage (size} of the home.5
• Sober living homes and the people who occupy them must be treated like any other single-
family home/household.6
Federal Acts & Laws
Federal Fair Housing Act
The Fair Housing Act (FHA} is a federal law enacted in 1968 that prevents discriminatory housing
practices against individuals with disabilities. Substance use disorders are considered a "disability" for
purposes of the FHA, and individuals suffering from these disorders constitute a "protected class."
Disability protections under the FHA do not protect individuals engaged in active drug use, regardless
of the individual's diagnosis.
While the FHA does not pre-empt local authority such as local zoning laws, it does prevent state and
local governments from enacting or enforcing land use or zoning laws that discriminate against persons
because of a legally protected characteristic. The FHA requires public entities to grant "reasonable
accommodations" so that individuals with disabilities can access equal housing opportunities. Zoning or
1 Fair Housing Act 24 C.F.R. 100.201.
2 Fair Employment and Housing Act and Fair Housing Act; §12900-12996 et seq.
3 Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal. App. 4th 451, 459-60 (2001).
4 Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.
5 Uniform Housing Code Section 503 (b).
6 City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 Cal. 3d 123, 134 {1980).
5
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 12 of 227
land use decisions or policies that exclude or otherwise discriminate against individuals with disabilities
and other protected classes are prohibited.
Federal Americans with Disabilities Act
Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, providing that people with
disabilities could not "be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
programs, or activities of [any State or local government] or be subjected to discrimination by any state
or local government" (42 U.S.C. § 12132). This means that the ADA prohibits discrimination against
individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including public accommodations. The court
system has interpreted the ADA and ruled that residents of RGHs must be allowed to live as a family
unit without undue intervention from federal, state or local governments.
The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in August
2015 updated their joint statement on "Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the Fair Housing Act."
("DOJ/HUD Joint Statement.") A copy of the DOJ/HUD Joint Statement is attached to this paper as
Attachment 1. The DOJ/HUD Joint Statement includes questions frequently posed by local officials, and
the related answers. The League of California Cities advises that the answers provided be approached
with extreme caution. Local officials walk a fine line in attempting to implement a policy that
seemingly meets with federal law. Even where a city does not violate federal law, a city could still
violate California law by treating an RGH differently than other single-family uses.
State Acts & Laws
California's constitution contains an express right to privacy, adopted by the voters in 1972. The
California Supreme Court has found that this right includes "the right to be left alone in our own homes"
and has explained that "the right to choose with whom to live is fundamental." Consequently, the
California courts have struck down local ordinances that attempt to control who lives in a household-
whether families or unrelated persons, whether healthy or disabled, whether renters or owners. Based
on the privacy clause in the State Constitution, California case law requires cities to treat groups of
related and unrelated people identically when they function as one household.
California law reinforces federal law in prohibiting housing discrimination against persons with
disabilities, including alcoholics and addicts in recovery. California has also established state laws and
regulations that prevent the discrimination of people with disabilities in housing, employment,
education and other important life areas. In California, it is illegal to refuse the rental or sale of property
to a person because of a disability or other characteristics such as his or her age, race, sex or gender.
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
The Fair Employment and Housing Act, adopted in California in 1959, to eliminate discrimination or
harassment in employment or in housing accommodations because of a person's disability, medical
condition, age or other personal characteristics. Under California law, Gov't Code § 12927(a),
landlords, master tenants, realtors and property managers are prohibited from denying a tenant ·
housing because of the tenant's disability. Through this act a disabled person must be given the equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling -including RGHs.
6
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 13 of 227
California Planning and Zoning Law
California Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code Section 65583, has long contained provisions
prohibiting discrimination in land use decisions based on disability. California requires that each city
and county adopt a "housing element" as part of its general plan (Cal. Gov't Code 65580 et seq). The
housing element administers the development of housing in the community. It must identify sites for
all types of housing, induding transitional housing, supportive housing and emergency shelters.
Beginning in 2002, local housing elements were required to review constraints on housing for persons
with disabilities and to include programs to remove constraints or to provide reasonable
accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities (Cal. Gov't Code 65583{a)(4);
65583{c)(3)). This means that communities must revise their zoning so that the only restrictions that
may be applied to supportive housing are those that apply to other residences of the same type
(single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes) in the same zoning district; no conditional use
permit or other permit is required unless other residences of that type in the same zone also must
obtain the same permit.
California Caselaw
City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson
SLHs may locate in residential zones in California based on the 1980 California Supreme Court decision,
City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, where the court ruled based on privacy rights, that definitions of
"family" for purposes of zoning cannot distinguish between related and unrelated individuals. 27 Cal. 3d
126 (1980). This means that local governments cannot limit the number of unrelated adults who may
reside together functioning as a family unit if they do not limit the number of related persons. SLHs that
function as a family and do not provide medical treatment or counseling, case management, medication
management or treatment planning and that do not supervise daily activities are not subject to any
state or local licensure requirements; therefore, no permits or licenses can be required.
Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Assn. v. Nelson
This California Court of Appeal decision held that the respondent homeowner's association {HOA) could
not adopt restrictive covenants that would limit the use of homes to "private residences" which could
exclude group homes for the disabled. Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Assn. v. Nelson, 25 Cal.
App. 4th 1 (1994). It should be noted that after briefs in this case were filed, the Legislature amended the
Government Code (sections 12955 and 12955.6) to make the restriction in the HOA's CC&Rs, as applied
to the facts of this case, unlawful.
City of Los Angeles v. Department of Health
California courts have determined that state law can prevent charter cities (like Carlsbad), and other
local agencies from regulating the location of small residential care facilities. In City of Los Angeles v.
Dept. of Health, the City of Los Angeles attempted to enact ordinances containing a definition of "single
family dwelling" that would have disallowed locating a small licensed recovery facility in an area zoned
for single family residences. 63 Cal. App. 3d 473 (1977). The city claimed that the city's status as a
charter city would support this definition. The Court of Appeal ruled that licensed RCFs serving six or
fewer persons cannot be considered anything but a residential use by local government despite the
city's charter status.
7
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 14 of 227
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
8 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 15 of 227
Local & State Permitting Limitations
As noted in the previous section, SLHs that provide housing to recovering addicts must be treated
like any other single-family home. If a special permit is not required for a family to live in a single-
family residence, the city cannot require a special permit for an SLH or any other type of RGH. The
same rules, regulations, building and zoning standards that apply to the construction of a single-
family home {i.e., parking, setbacks, design standards}, apply to an RGH. Any nuisance laws that
apply in a single-family neighborhood {i.e., noise, trash, parking on front-yard} must also be applied
equally to an RGH .
While state law prevents local agencies from requiring SLHs to be licensed, state or local
jurisdictions have the authority to require a license and/or permit for other types of RGHs,
depending upon certain factors as listed below.
• The types of services being provided in the home {non-medical or medical}
• The number of people residing in the home at any one time?
Before explaining the certificate types, it is important to differentiate between a license and
permit, and the two permit types that can be issued by local jurisdictions.
City Business License
The issuance of a city business licenses involves a ministerial {non-deliberative} application process
and ultimately allows the local jurisdiction to track and ensure that taxes and fees are being
collected from people conducting business in the city. Every entity or person doing business or
headquartered in the City of Carlsbad is required to have a business license {with limited
exceptions}. A business license does not authorize or allow a business to operate, nor does it
regulate its operations. Also, a business license cannot be conditioned to impose additional
limitations or restrictions beyond those that are codified in existing law. The city may revoke a
business license in the·event the business violates state and federal laws.
State License
The State Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division and the State
Department of Health Care Services regulate, monitor and enforce licensed homes. Each agency
has compliance, licensing and certification branches responsible for oversight of RGHs that provide
treatment and ensuring that the facility provides quality services to all program participants in a
safe and healthful environment.
These agencies may suspend or revoke an RGH license when the treatment program fails to comply
with any state statutory requirement, regulation or standards. Examples of program failure include,
but are not limited to, program operation that leads to death, serious physical harm or imminent
danger to a client; or if the program, its agents or employees are convicted of fraud or other crimes
relating to the operation of the program. The state cannot revoke the license for inappropriate or
illegal behavior conducted on the part of the RGH residents.
9
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 16 of 227
City Ministerial Permit
Ministerial permits are granted upon determination that a proposed project complies with established
standards and policies. The most common ministerial permit is the Building Permit. An applicant
wanting to build a new home or expand an existing residence must show how the new construction will
comply with state and local building, fire and zoning requirements. Once the applicant can show
compliance with these objective standards, the local jurisdiction is legally obligated to issue the building
permit. The process of reviewing and considering a ministerial permit does not involve a lot of
discretion or involve public input or comment. Ministerial permits cannot be conditioned to regulate or
address ongoing operations or use.
City Discretionary Permit
Discretionary permits and processes are required when development may have impacts on the
surrounding area due to a proposed use, design feature or project location. Uses that typically require a
discretionary permit include gas stations, restaurants/bars, shopping centers, large residential
subdivisions and hotels. Discretionary approvals require the exercise of judgment and deliberation by a
decision-maker and involve public input and public hearing. Discretionary permits can come in the form
of a Conditional Use Permit or Site Development Permit that are considered and approved (in most
cases) by the Planning Commission and appealable to the City Council.
Table 1 below identifies the licensing and/or permitting requirements for the varying RGHs. Please
note that the city's permitting authority for RGHs is greatly limited as explained in the previous
section and precludes its ability to require discretionary permits for most RGHs.
TABLE 1:
Permitting Requirements per Facility Type
Facility
Type1
Sober Living
Home
Sober Living
Home
Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care
Facilities
Professional
Care Facilities
Number of
Occupants1
s Six
;:: Seven
s Six
;:: Seven
;::one
1 Refer to "Types of Facilities," pages 5-6
Medical
Services
Provided?1
No
No
No
No
Yes
Non-Medical
Services
Provided?1
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
City Authority
Can a Can a State Business Discretionary License License be Permit be Required? Required? Required?
No No No
No No No
Yes Yes No
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
10
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 17 of 227
Attempts to Change the Laws
Many states have concerns with RGHs being in residential neighborhoods, near churches
and schools. Recently, laws creating statewide voluntary certification or accreditation of
RGHs have been introduced in Pennsylvania (2016) and Massachusetts (2014). In St. Paul,
Minnesota, an ordinance passed in 2008 requires a 330-foot buffer between RGHs and
places restrictions on occupancy and parking. However, due to California state laws and
relevant court cases, these restrictions cannot be easily applied in California without
potentially violating the rights of those with disabilities including substance abuse and
mental illness.
In the past 15 years California lawmakers have made multiple attempts to regulate RGHs;
these attempts have been unsuccessful to date. Out of 25 bills affecting RGHs introduced
since the 1998 legislative session, only three reached the Governor's desk and all of those
were vetoed by the Governor.
At the federal level, the Recovery Home Certification Act of 2018 (RHCA), sponsored by two
House members from California, R-Steve Knight and D-Anna Eshoo, would establish quality
standards for RGHs. Introduced in the House (Feb. 27, 2018), the RHCA would require the
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery to establish model criteria for
recovery homes and award grants to states that establish and operate recovery homes
based on such model criteria. As of the writing of this report, the House of Representatives
referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations where it has remained with no action since March of 2018.
At the state level, California Assembly member Tom Daly, (D-Anaheim) submitted a
proposal (Assembly Bill 1779) that calls for establishing the first ever minimum operating
standards for group homes for recovery that receive public money. It also would deny
certification to would-be operators that have previously lost licenses to run addiction
treatment centers. As of the writing of this report, the bill remains in committee and is held
under submission.
California Lawsuits Affecting RGHs
The League of Cities white paper (Attachment 2) discusses the approaches of Newport
Beach and Costa Mesa, which crafted zoning ordinances that attempt to regulate and limit
group home concentration in residential areas (among other regulations on group homes).
Some of the affected group homes filed lawsuits against these cities raising viable
constitutional claims as well as violations of the FHA and the ADA.
City of Newport Beach
In Newport Beach the city originally proposed an ordinance that imposed a moratorium on
"transitory uses" in residential districts (which included group living arrangements like RGHs
and short-term vacation rentals (STVRs)). The city ultimately reduced the focus of the
11 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 18 of 227
group living arrangements by removing STVRs. The amended regulations prohibit new
group homes in most residential areas, require existing group homes in those areas to
submit to an onerous permit process and subjects those seeking to establish group homes
in the limited areas in which they are still permitted to operate under the same
burdensome permit process.
In the case Pacific Shores Properties et. al. v. City of Newport Beach, a group of SLH
operators filed suit against the City of Newport Beach claiming that the city's rules were
discriminatory and resulted in loss of business and emotional distress.7 A federal district
court sided with the City of Newport Beach, but a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel
reversed this decision and found that the city's purpose in enacting the ordinance was to
exclude group homes from most residential districts and to bring about the closure of
existing group homes in those areas.8 Although the City of Newport Beach was able to
settle the case, which allowed the city to avoid a trial and retain their group home zoning ·
regulations, they paid approximately $5.25 million to three separate group home entities
per the terms of the settlement; this is in addition to approximately $4 million spent
defending the lawsuits.
City of Costa Mesa
The City of Costa Mesa has endured at least two costly and consuming lawsuits following
the adoption of controversial RGH regulatory ordinances and a permitting scheme, similar
to those adopted by the City of Newport Beach. In Yellowstone Women's First Step House,
Inc., et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, multiple RGHs sued the City of Costa Mesa over such
ordinances.9 One requirement of these regulatory ordinances is that RGHs must be located
at least 650 feet from one another in residential zones. The plaintiffs, which operated RGHs
in the City of Costa Mesa claimed that the newly adopted ordinances discriminated against
disabled persons (especially those in recovery).10 A jury sided with the city. However,
plaintiffs filed an appeal with the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2019.
Staff is not yet aware of a hearing date for this appeal.
Another lawsuit against the City of Costa Mesa was filed by Casa Capri Recovery, Inc., a drug
treatment facility that housed up to 28 women between two locations sited next door to
one another in the city.11 The city's RGH ordinances required Casa Capri to apply for
separate permits for the properties, triggering the 650-foot buffer rule. The city determined
that Casa Capri was in violation of the RGH ordinances and denied its request for what Casa
Capri called "reasonable accommodations" to operate on the contiguous parcels. Casa
Capri sued the city for discrimination-related claims, similar to those articulated by the
Yellowstone plaintiffs. On March 11, 2020, a federal district court considered a motion by
the city to dismiss the case prior to trial and ruled in favor of the city (upholding the buffer
zone). In so ruling, the court adopted the city's reasoning that not all participants in a drug
rehabilitation program necessarily qualify as "disabled;" rather, this requires case-by-case
7 Pacific Shores Properties, LLC et al. v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 11S7 {9th Cir. 2013).
8 Id.
9 Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, Case No. 19-56410 {2019).
10 Id.
11 Casa Capri Recovery, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa, Case No. 18-329 (2020).
12
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 19 of 227
assessment.12 While this judgment may appear promising for Costa Mesa at first blush, Casa
Capri Recovery, Inc. has appealed the judgement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Staff is
not yet aware of a hearing date for this appeal.
There are still other RGH lawsuits pending against the City of Costa Mesa, such as one filed
by Socal Recovery, LLC, that is pending in the federal district court.13
In short, RGH litigation against the City of Costa Mesa is still pending in various courts at the
district court and circuit court levels. While some decisions appear to favor the City of Costa
Mesa and its RGH regulatory ordinances and permitting scheme, this litigation is still
ongoing, and it is too premature at this time to draw any conclusions from these cases.
12 A similar ruling was recently reached in a lawsuit filed by Pacific Shores Recovery. It is not yet known whether Pacific Shores
Recovery will also appeal its case.
13 Saco/ Recovery, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa et al., 8:18-CV-01304.
13
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 20 of 227
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 21 of 227
Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Meeting on SLHs
On Feb. 19, 2019, the City Council received an informational staff report on SLHs and applicable
regulations to allow for discussion of concerns raised by Carlsbad residents and potential actions
to address those concerns (Attachment 3). Following the presentation of this staff report, the
City Council approved a Minute Motion directing the creation of a subcommittee to discuss SLHs
and return with a work plan (Attachment 4). On Jul. 23, 2019, the City Council unanimously
adopted Resolution No. 2019-134 authorizing the formation of an ad-hoc subcommittee on SLHs
(Attachment 5). The makeup and duties of the subcommittee pursuant to the adopted
resolution were as follows:
• That the City Council Ad-Hoc Subcommittee be comprised of two City Council
members (Council Member Blackburn and Council Member Hamilton). Of note,
Council Member Hamilton subsequently resigned her position prior to any meeting
of the subcommittee and the City Council elected not to fill her vacancy.
• The duties of the subcommittee include working with staff to engage community
stakeholders, to listen to and discuss their concerns and recommendations
regarding SLHs and to recommend potential state and local regulatory and
legislative strategies for the City Council to pursue.
On Dec. 2, 2019, staff meet with the ad-hoc subcommittee to discuss the logistics of a
community meeting to discuss SLHs including date, time, location and format. Staff also
discussed approaches to outreach and educational/outreach information that should be
developed and made available at the meeting.
On Jan. 29, 2020, City staff held a two-hour community meeting to solicit resident comments on
SLHs. To ensure maximum participation, residents who previously expressed an interest on the
issue were invited to attend the community meeting. The meeting was also advertised on the
city's website and on the Next-door app. Printed flyers about the event were also placed at
various high-traffic areas in city facilities.
Roughly 21 residents attended, where they shared their concerns and experiences with SLHs
located within their neighborhoods. During the meeting, staff also distributed a City of Carlsbad
Group Living Arrangements Handout, which is also available on the city's website (Attachment
6). Community members were given until Feb. 12, 2020, to submit final comments, questions
and concerns on the topic of sober living homes.
Public Concerns & Comments
Because there was a lot of similarities and overlap in the questions and concerns that were
raised during and after the Jan. 29, 2020 community meeting, the city grouped the comments
into four general categories. All the questions and correspondences have been included in
Attachment 7, including the meeting minutes for the Jan. 29, 2020 subcomrnittee meeting.
• Legal Concerns
• Zoning & Building Concerns
15
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 22 of 227
• Safety Concerns
• Subcommittee and Process Concerns
The sections below include staff responses to each of these general categories.
Legal Concerns
The regulation of RGHs is a legally challenging area, as outlined in this report. Their regulation
cannot be approached in the same manner as other property, land use and permitting
regulations, such as short-term vacation rentals, since RGHs necessarily involve the
constitutionally protected class of disabled persons.
Again, the primary statutes that must be the touchstone of any regulatory analysis include the
FHA and the ADA. The FHA prohibits zoning practices that discriminates against individuals with
disabilities by making housing unavailable or denying housing to those persons. Pacific Shores
Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013). Similarly, the ADA
prohibits public entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities through zoning
ordinances and decisions. Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179
F.3d 725, 730-32 (9th Cir. 1999).
To comply with the FHA and ADA, a zoning law cannot treat disabled persons less favorably than
non-disabled persons. In other words, a city cannot impose a zoning law that discriminates
against persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. Courts have found that if a
disabled individual challenges such a law for "facial discrimination" (a law that by its very terms
treats two different classes of persons differently), a city cannot defeat the challenge simply by
implementing an approval procedure for group homes to "rescue" the ordinance (i.e., a use
permit or reasonable accommodation program). Even a facially neutral zoning law may
nevertheless be invalid in an "as applied" challenge under circumstances. If a plaintiff can
establish a direct or circumstantial evidence that a discriminatory reason more likely than not
motivated the city in adoption of such a permitting/operating conditions ordinance and the
city's actions adversely affected the plaintiff in some way, the city could lose such a challenge.
Therefore, even a seemingly innocent and neutral permitting scheme could be construed as
discriminatory as applied to RGHs, since they would seemingly be the only types of homes
targeted by and subject to such an ordinance.
For more information on the laws governing the various types of RGHs, please refer to the
"Group Living Arrangements" handout from the city's Jan . 29, 2020 town hall meeting on group
homes (Attachment 6). Attachment 6 explains the general limits on local authority over
unlicensed group living arrangements where unrelated individuals live as a household (which
includes SLHs). Attachment 6 also explains that state law requires localities to consider such
licensed group living arrangements as a residential use of property and as a family for purposes
of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to residential uses of property.
State law does not view SLHs as a home-based business even though profit may be incurred by
the owner/operator. Due to the constraints of state and federal law, cities cannot create or
interpret existing business licensing regulations to apply to RGHs strictly on this basis. If,
16
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 23 of 227
however, an RGH is engaged in business activity outside of the housing of unrelated, disabled
persons for profit, the city will investigate the matter and enforce accordingly.
Additional in-depth legal analysis of SLHs can be found in the League of California Cities white
paper referenced earlier in this report (Attachment 2). Attachment 2 explains various cities'
attempts at regulating sober living homes and the pitfalls of such regulations.
NOTE : Despite these legal limitations on the regulation of RGHs, the city will pursue allowable
enforcement action against RGHs as it would with any other code enforcement or police
incident. For example, if there is conduct ongoing at an RGH that rises to the level of a public
nuisance, the city notices and eventually cite the property owner and any occupants with an
administrative or criminal citation, depending on the circumstances. There may be other
applicable violations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code that could be enforced in a similar manner.
The community feedback included many questions and suggestions that were legal in nature.
For example, residents requested that RGHs have location restrictions, hoping that the city's
zoning code could be modified to address density concerns and limit the number of RGHs within
a certain geographic area . The federal Department of Justice as well as the Department of
Housing and Urban Development have both taken the position that density (or over-
concentration) restrictions are inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act.14
Notwithstanding, this is the zoning and regulatory approach that was enacted by the cities
of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, both the subjects of ongoing litigation (see section
entitled "Attempts to Change the Law"). The city continues to monitor the progress of
these lawsuits and will advise the City Council of any changed legal recommendations once
the lawsuits conclude.
Residents also requested that measures such as background checks and surprise
inspections be performed on RGHs. The city has no local law or policy on point to allow for
this, and these measures would likely violate state and federal laws. And, because the city
must treat RGH occupants like any other occupant in a single-family home, any such
requirements should be uniformly imposed on £1[ residential residents.
Building & Zoning Concerns
RGHs in Carlsbad that operate as a single housekeeping unit must comply with the same
local zoning requirements as other dwelling or structures in a particular zone, including
residential zones. Carlsbad cannot require a special city license or permit for RG Hs that is
different from any other residences.
In general, the City of Carlsbad requires building permits for all new construction, additions,
and remodels. The city reviews plans to ensure compliance with building, housing and
zoning codes before building permits are issued. State laws prohibit the city from imposing
different parking requirements on licensed small group homes than those that apply to any
14 https://www.iustice. qov/crt(ioint-statement-department-iustice-and-department-housinq-and-urban-development.
17
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 24 of 227
other residence. State laws also prohibit the city from imposing a restriction on the number
of cars allowed on residential property.
Because the city does not have an ordinance regulating smoking on private residential
properties, state laws prohibit the city from limiting or controlling smoking activities
specifically for RGHs. Development standards and fire sprinkler requirements that apply
generally to all residential development also apply to RGHs. The state Uniform Housing
Code (UHC) specifies the occupancy limits that apply to residential uses, and the city is
prohibited from imposing more restrictive occupancy limits for RGHs than those established
in the UHC.
Safety Questions
The city must have reliable, objective evidence that the resident of an RGH poses a direct threat
before taking any enforcement action. There are no mandated training, certification or
background checks for RGH operators for the discrimination-related reasons previously
explained.
The police department responds to all calls for service, both arising from RGHs or from the
surrounding neighborhood. In 2019, the city's police department responded to 38 calls involving
known RGHs, which represents roughly .03 percent of the total number of nuisance calls that
were responded.
If any person observes a situation that endangers the safety of people or property, they are
encouraged to call the police department's 24/7 non-emergency dispatch telephone number
(760.931.2197), or 911 as appropriate. The police department will respond to investigate the
concern. Also, an people are encouraged to report suspicious or illegal behavior. The police
department embraces and encourages the "see something, say something program."
Ad Hoc Committee Questions
Many concerns were raised about the delay in holding the Jan. 29, 2020 public meeting, the city
acknowledges and apologizes for this delay, due in large part to the sponsoring City Council sub-
committee member's resignation and uncertainty whether a replacement councilmember
would be appointed. There were also other city priorities that took scheduling precedence over
the meeting.
Residents also questioned why they were not able to be members of the ad-hoc subcommittee.
As previously stated, on Jul. 23, 2019, the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No.
2019-134 authorizing the formation of a two-Council Member ad-hoc subcommittee tasked with
working with staff to engage community stakeholders, to listen to and discuss their concerns
and recommendations regarding SLHs and to recommend potential regulatory and legislative
strategies for the City Council to pursue.
City staff respectfully submit that the subcommittee meeting held on Jan. 29, 2020, this report
and the May 12, 2020 City Council meeting to present this report satisfy the City Council's
direction.
18
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 25 of 227
Conclusion
On April 17, 2020, staff met with the ad-hoc subcommittee to review the report and discuss its findings
and conclusions. Following the discussion, the ad-hoc subcommittee found that given the restrictions in
current state and federal law, as well as the current lack of legal clarity in the substantially undecided
California case law concerning group homes and specifically sober living homes, the city is limited in
what it can legally do to address many of the concerns raised by the community. However, there are a
few things the city could do to help bring attention to the issue:
City's Legislative Program
Pursuant to Carlsbad's 2018 Legislative Platform, the city will use the platform and legislative
advocacy efforts to:
Protect the City's interests and local legislative authority and will take appropriate
action when required to safeguard and/or advance the City's interests. This includes
preserving and protecting the City's charter powers, duties and prerogatives to
enact local legislation concerning local affairs.
The City Council will soon be considering updates to the city's Legislative Platform. A new policy,
which specifically addresses RGHs, is proposed under the "Planning & Zoning" section of the
Legislative Platform and is currently drafted as follows:
(g) Support legislation that enables local agencies to effectively address issues
concerning public safety and proper management of group homes.
With this direction, staff can work with agencies like the League of California Cities and our lobbyists to
encourage state and federal representatives to develop new legislation that addresses the adverse
impacts associated with RGHs in residential neighborhoods. For example, the city could encourage the
DOJ and HUD to issue a new joint clarification under the ADA and FHA to allow local governments to
enact reasonable guidelines for the health, safety and welfare of RGHs and their surrounding
neighborhoods and communities. A DOJ/HUD clarification in 2016 provided little effective guidance,
leading only to increased confusion.15
Changes Resulting from Lawsuits
The city will continue to monitor current court cases and relevant lawsuits and report back for City
Council consideration any decisions that result in definitive legal precedent and would feasibly allow the
city to regulate RGHs, such as the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa cases.
Continued Enforcement
The city will continue to respond to complaints and calls from residents near RGHs and enforce those
rules and regulations that apply to all single-family residences (i.e., unpermitted construction, public
nuisances, trash).
15 https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-regu/ation-sober-living-homes-recovery-residences-need.html.
19
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 26 of 227
Statement on Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the Fair Housing Act, issued on August 18,
1999. The first section of the Joint Statement, Questions 1-6, describes generally the Act's
requirements as they pertain to land use and zoning. The second and third sections, Questions 7-
25, discuss more specifically how the Act applies to land use and zoning laws affecting housing
for persons with disabilities, including guidance on regulating group homes and the requirement
to provide reasonable accommodations. The fourth section, Questions 26=-27, addresses HUD's
and DOJ' s enforcement of the Act in the land use and zoning context.
This Joint Statement focuses on the Fair Housing Act, not on other federal civil rights
laws that prohibit state and local governments from adopting or implementing land use and
zoning practices that discriminate based on a protected characteristic, such as Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),3 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
("Section 504"),4 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.5 In addition, the Joint Statement
does not address a state or local government's duty to affirmatively further fair housing, even
. though state and local governments that receive HUD assistance are subject to this duty. For
additional information provided by DOJ and HUD regarding these issues, see the list of
resources provided in the answer to Question 27.
Questions and Answers on the Fair Housing Act and
State and Local Land Use Laws and Zoning
1. How does the Fair Housing Act apply to state and local land use and zoning?
The Fair Housing Act prohibits a broad range of housing practices that discriminate
against individuals on the basis ofrace, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national
origin ( commonly refen-ed to as protected characteristics). As established by the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution;· federal-laws such as the·Fair Housing Act talce precedence over
conflicting state ~nd local laws. The Fair Housing Act thus prohibits state and locai land use and
zoning laws, policies, and practices that discriminate based on a characteristic protected under
the Act. Prohibited practices as defined in the Act include malcing unavailable or denying
housing because of a protected characteristic. Housing includes not only buildings intended for
occupancy as residences, but also vacant land that may be developed into residences.
is drawn almost verbatim "from the definition of 'handicap' contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988"). This document uses the term "disability," which is more generally accepted.
3 42 u.s.c. §12132;
4 29 U.S.C. § 794.
5 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
2
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 29 of 227
2. What types of land use and zoning laws or practices violate the Fair Housing Act?
Examples of state and local land use and zoning laws or practices that may violate the
Act include:
• Prohibiting or restricting the development of housing based on the belief that the
residents will be members of a particular protected class, such as race, disability,
or familial status, by, for example, placing a moratorium on the development of
multifamily housing because of concerns that the residents will ip_clude members
of a particular protected class.
• Imposing restrictions or additional conditions on group housing for persons with
disabilities that are not imposed on families or other groups of unrelated
individuals, by, for example, requiring an occupancy permit for persons with
disabilities to live in a single-family home while not requiring a permit for other
residents of single-family homes.
• Imposing restrictions on housing because of alleged public safety concerns that
are based on stereotypes about the resjdents' or anticipated residents' membership
in a protected class, by, for example, requiring a proposed development to provide
additional security measures based on a belief that pers.ons of a particular
protected class are more likely to engage in criminal activity.
• Enforcing oth_erwise neutral laws or policies differently because of the residents'
protected characteristics, by, for example, citing individuals who are members of
a particular protected class for violating code requirements for property upkeep
while not citing other residents for similar violations.
• Refusing to provide reasonable accommodations to land use or zoning policies
when such accommodations-may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities
to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the housing~-by Jar example:· ---
denying a request to modify a setback requirement so an accessible sidewalk or
ramp can be provided for one or more persons with mobility disabilities.
3. When does a land use or zoning practice constitute intentional discrimination in
violation of the Fair Housing Act?
Intentional discrimination is also referred to as disparate treatment, meaning ~at ~he _
action treats a person or group of persons differently because of race, color, religion, sex,
disability, familial status, or national origin. A land use or zoning practice may be intentionally
discriminatory even if there is no personal bias or animus on the part of individual government
officials. For example, municipal zoning practices or decisions that reflect acquiescence to
community bias may be intentionally discriminat01y, even if the officials themselves do not
personally share such bias. (See Q&A 5.) Intentional discrimination does not require that the
3
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 30 of 227
decision-makers were hostile toward members of a particular protected class. Decisions
motivated by a purported desire to benefit a particular group can also violate the Act if they
result in differential treatment because of a protected characteristic.
A land use or zoning practice may be disc1iminat01y on its face. For example, a law that
requires persons with disabilities to request permits to live in single-family zones while not
requiring persons without disabilities to request such permits violates the Act because it treats
persons with disabilities differently based on their disability. Even a law that is seemingly
neutral will still violate the Act if enacted with discriminatory intent. In that instance, the
analysis of whether there is intentional discrilllination will be based on a variety of factors, all of
which need not be satisfied. These factors _include, but are not limited to: (1) the "impact" of the
municipal practice, such as whether an ordinance disproportionately impacts minority residents
compared to white residents or whether the practice perpetuates segregation in a neighborhood or
particular geographic area; (2) the "historical background" of the action, such as whether there is
a history of segregation or discriminatory conduct by the municipality; (3) the "specific sequence
of events," such as whether the city adopted an ordinance or took action only after significant,
racially-motivated community opposition to a housing development or changed course after
learning that a development would include non-white residents; (4) departures from the "no1mal
procedural sequence," such as whether a municipality deviated from normal application or
zoning requirements; (5) "substantive departures," such as whether the factors usually considered
important s~ggest that a state or local government should have reached a different result; and ( 6)
the "legislative or administrative hist01y," such as any statements by members of the state or
local decision-making body.6
4. Can state and local land use and zoning laws or practices violate the Fair Housing
Act if the state or locality did not intend to discriminate against persons on a
prohibited basis?
Yes. Even absent a discriminatory intent, state or local governments may be liable under
the Act for any land use or zoning law orpractice that has an unjustified discriminatmy effect
because of a protected characte1istic. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court affirmed this
interpretation of the Act in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive
Communities Project, Inc. 7 The Court stated that "[t]hese unlawful practices include zoning
laws and other housing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain
neighborhoods without any sufficient justification."8
6 Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Haus. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-68 (1977).
7 _U.S._, 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015).
8Jd. at2521.:..22:
4
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 31 of 227
A land use or zoning practice results in a discriminatory effect if it caused or predictably
will cause a disparate impact on a group of persons or if it creates, increases, reinforces, or
perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of a protected characteristic. A state or local
government still has the opportunity to show that the practice is necessary to achieve one or more
of its substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests. These interests must be supported by
evidence and may not be hypothetical or speculative. If these interests could not be served by
another practice that has a less discriminatory effect, then the practice does not violate the Act.
The standard for evaJuating housing-related practices with a discriminatory effect are set forth in
HUD's Discriminatory Effects Rule, 24 C.F.R § 100.500.
Examples of land use practices that violate the Fair Housing Act under a discriminatory
effects standard include minimum floor space or lot size requirements that increase the size and
cost of housing if such an increase has the effect of excluding persons from a locality or
neighborhood because of their membership in a protected class, without a legally sufficient
justification. _Similarly, prohibiting low-income or multifamily housing may have a
discriminat01y effect on persons because of their membership in a protected class and, if so,
would violate the Act absent a legally sufficient justification.
5. · Does a state or local government violate the Fair Housing Act if it considers the
fears or prejudices of community members when enacting or applying its zoning or
land use laws respecting housing?
When enacting or applying zoning or land use laws, state and local governments may not .
act because of the fears, prejudices, stereotypes, or unsubstantiated assumptions that community
members may have about current or prospective residents because of the residents' protected
characteristics. Doing so violates the Act, even if the officials themselves do not personally
share such-bias~ ·For-example, a city may not deny-zoning·approval fora low~income·housing
· development that meets all zoning and land use requirements because the development may
house residents of a particular protected class or classes whose presence, the community fears,
will increase crime and lower property values in the surrounding neighborhood. Similarly, a
local government may riot block a group home or deny a requested reasonable accommodation in
· response to neighbors' stereotypical fears or prejudices about persons with disabilities or a
particular type of disability. Of course, a city council or zoning board is not bound by everything
that is said by every person who speaks at a public hearing. It is the record as a whole that will
be determinative.
5
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 32 of 227
6. Can state and local governments violate the Fair Housing Act if they adopt or
implement restrictions against children?
Yes. State and local governments may not impose restrictions on where families with
children may reside unless the restrictions are consistent with the "housing for older persons"
exemption of t:Iie Act. The most common types of housing for older persons that may qualify for
this exemption are: (1) housing intended for, and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or
older; and (2) housing in which 80% of the occupied units have at least one person whois 55
years of age or older that publishes and adheres to policies and procedures demonstrating the
. intent to house older persons. These types of housing must meet all requirements of the
exemption, including complying with HUD regulations applicable to such housing, such as
verification procedures regarding the age of the occupants. A state or local government that
zones an area to exclude families with children under 18 years of age must continually ensure
that housing iii that zone meets all requirements of the exemption. If all of the housing in that
zone does not continue to meet all such requirements, that state or local government violates the
Act.
Questions and Answers on the Fair Housing Act and
Local Land Use and Zoning Regulation of Group Homes
7. · Who qualifies as a person with a dis~bility under the Fair Housing Act?
The Fair Housing Act defines a person with a disability to include (1) individuals with a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2)
individuals who are regarded as having such an impairment; and (3) individuals with a record of
such an impairment.
The term "physical or mental impa:iiment" includes, but is not limited to, diseases and
conditions such as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism,
epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, HIV infection,
developmental disabilities, mental illness, drug addiction ( other than addiction caused by cunent,
illegal use of a controlled substance), and alcoholism.
The term "major life activity" includes activities such as seeing, hearing, walking
breathing, performing manual tasks, ~aring for one's self, learning, speaking, and working. This
list of major life activities is not exhaustive.
Being regarded as having a disability means that the individual is treated as if he or she
has a disability even though the individual may not have an impaiiment or may not have an
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. For example, if a landlord
6
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 33 of 227
refuses to rent to a person because the landlord believes the prospective tenant has a disability,
then the landlord violates the Act's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of disability, even
· if the prospective tenant does not actually have a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities.
Having a record of a disability means the individual has a history of, or has been
misclassified as having~ a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities.
8. What is a group home within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act?
The term "group home" does not have a specific legal meaning; land use and zoning
officials and the courts, however, have referred to some residences.for persons with disabilities
as group homes. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and
persons with disabilities have the same Fair-Housing Act protections whether or not their
housing is considered a group home. A household where two or more persons with disabilities
choose to live together, as a matter of association, may not be subjected to requirements or
conditions that are not imposed on households consisting ofpersons without disabilities.
In this Statement, the term "group home" refers to a dwelling that is or will be occupied
by unrelated persons with disabilities. Sometimes group homes serve individuals with a
particular type of disability, and sometimes they serve individuals with a variety of disabilities.
Some group homes provide residents with in-home support services of varying types, while
others do not. The provision of support services is not required for a group home to be protected
under the Fair Housing Act. Group homes, as discussed in this Statement, may be opened by
individuals or by organizations, both for-profit and not-for-profit.. Sometimes it is the group
-home operator or devel:nper, rathertlrantb_--e-fadividuals who live 01· are exp·ected to livein·fue --
home, who interacts with a state or local government agency about developing or operating the
group home, and sometimes there is no interaction among residents or operators and state or
local governments.
In this Statement, the term "group home" includes homes occupied by person_s in
recovery from alcohol or substance abuse, who are persons with disabilities under the Act.
Although a group home for persons in recovery may commonly be called a "sober home," the
term does not have a specific legal meaning, and the Act treats persons with disabilities who
reside in such homes no_differently than persons with disabilities who reside in other types of
group homes. Like other group homes, homes for persons in recovery are sometimes operated
by individuals or organizations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and support services or
supervision are sometimes, but not always, provided. The Act does not require a person who
resides in a home for persons in recovery to have participated in or be currently participating in a
7
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 34 of 227
substance abuse treatment program to be considered a person with a disability. The fact that a
resident of a group home may currently be illegally using a controlled substance does not deprive
the other residents of the protection of the Fair Housing Act.
9. In what ways does the Fair Housing Act apply to group homes?
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and persons with
disabilities have the same Fair Housing Act protections whether or not their housing is
considered a group home. State and loc.al governments may not disc1iminate against persons
with disabilities who live in group homes. Persons with disabilities who live in or seek to live in
group homes are sometimes subjected to unlawful discrimination in a number of ways, including
those discussed in the preceding Section of this Joint Statement. Discrimination may be
intentional; for example, a locality might pass an ordinance prohibiting group homes in single-
family neighborhoods or prohibiting group homes for persons with certain disabilities. These ·
ordinances are facially discriminatory, in violation of the Act. In addition, as discussed more
fully in Q&A 10 below, a state or local government may violate the Act by refusing to grant a
reasonable accommodation to its zoning or land· use ordinance when the requested
accommodation may be necessary for persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, if a locality refuses to waive an ordinance that limits the
number of unrelated persons wlio inay live in a single-family home where such a waiver may be
necessaiy for persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,
the locality violates the Act unless the locality can prove that the waiver would impose an undue
financial and administrative burden on the local government or fundamentally alter the essential
nature of the locality's zoning scheme. Furthermore, a state or local government may violate the
Act by enacting an ordinance that has an unjustified discriminatory effect on persons with
disabilities who seek to live in a group home in the community. Unlawful actions concerning
group homes are discussed in more detail throughout this Statement.
10. What is a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act?
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to refuse to make "reasonable accommodations"
to rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations.may be necessary to afford
persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to .use and enjoy a dwellip.g. A "reasonable
accommodation" is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that
may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling, including public and common use spaces. Since rules, policies, practices, and services
may have a different effect on persons with disabilities than on other persons, treating persons
with disabilities exactly the saine as others may sometimes deny them an equal opp01iunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling.
8
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 35 of 227
Even if a zoning ordinance imposes on group homes the same restrictions that it imposes
on housing for other groups of unrelated persons, a local government may be required, in
individual cases and when requested to do so, to grant a reaso_nable accommodation to a group
home for persons with disabilities. What constitutes a reasonable accommodation is a case-by-
case determination based on an individualized assessment. This topic is discussed in detail in
Q&As 20--c-25 and in the HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations under the
_ Fair Housing Act.
11. Does the Fair Housing Act protect persons with disabilities who pose a "direct
threat" to others?
The Act does not allow for the exclusion of individuals based upori fear, speculation, or
stereotype about a particular disability or persons with disabilities in general. Nevertheless, the
Act does not protect an individual whose tenancy would constitute a "direct threat" to the health
or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to
the property of others unless the threat or risk to property can be eliminated or significantly
reduced by reasonable accommodation. A determination that an individual poses a.direct threat
must rely on an individualized assessment that is based on reliable objective evidence (for
example, current conduct or a recent history of overt acts). The assessment must consider:· (1)
the nature, duration, and severity of the risk of injury; (2) the probability that injury will actually
occur; and (3) whether there are any reasonable accommodations that will eliminate or
significantly reduce the direct-threat. See Q&A 10 for a general discussion of reasonable
accommodations. Consequently, in evaluatin$ an individual's recent history of overt acts, a state.
or local government must take into account whether the individual has received intervening
treatment or medication that has eliminated or significantly reduced the direct threat (in other
words, significant risk of substantial harm). fu such a situation; the state or local government
ma,y request that the individual show how the circumstances have changed so that he or she no
longer poses a direct threat. Any such request must be reasonable and limited to information
necessary to assess whether circumstances have changed. Additionally, in such a situation; a
· state or local government may obtain satisfactory and reasonable assurances that the individual
will not pose a direct threat dllill?-g the tenancy. The state or local government must have
reliable, objective evidence that the tenancy of a person with a disability poses a direct threat
before excluding him or her from housing on that basis, and, in making that assessment, the state
or local government may not ignore evidence showing that the individual's tenancy would no
longer pose a direct threat. Moreover, the fact that one individual may pose a direct threat does
not mean that another individual with the same disability or other individuals in a group home
may be denied housing.
9
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 36 of 227
12. Can a state or local government enact laws that specifically limit group homes for .
individuals with specific types of disabilities?
No. Just as it would be illegal to enact a law for the purpose of excluding or limiting
group horn.es for individuals with disabilities, it is illegal under the Act for local land use and
zoning laws to exclude or limit group horn.es for individuals with specific types of disabilities.
For example, a governm.ent may not limit group horn.es for persons with mental illness to certain
neighborhoods. The fact that the state or local governm.ent complies with the Act with regard to
group horn.es for persons with some types of disabilities will not justify discrimination against
individuals with another type of disability, such as mental illness.
13. Can a state or local government limit the number of individuals who reside in a
group home in a residential neighborhood?
Neutral laws that govern groups of unrelated persons who live together do not violate the
Act so long as (1) those laws do not intentionally discriminate against persons on the basis of
disability (or other protected class), (2) those laws do not have an unjustified discriminatory
effect on the basis of disability ( or other protected class), and (3) state and local governments
make reasonable accommodations when such-accommodations may be necessary for a person
with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Local zoning and land use laws that treat groups of unrelated persons with disabilities
less favorably than similar groups of unrelated perkons without disabilities violate the Fair
Housing Act. For example, suppose a city's zoning ordinance defines a "family" to include up to
a certain number of unrelated persons living together as a household unit, and gives such a group
of unrelated persons the right to live in any zoning dist.J.ictwithout special permission from the
city_.· If that ordinance also prohibits a group home having the same number of persons with
disabilities in a certain district or requires it to seek a use permit, the ordinance would violate the
Fair Housing Act. The ordinance violates the Act because it treats persons with disabilities less
favorably than families and unrelated persons without disabilities.
A local governm.ent may generally restrict the ability of groups of unrelated persons to
live together without violating the Act as long as the restrictions are imposed on all such groups,
including a group defined as a family. Thus, if the definition of a family includes up to a certain
. number of unrelated individuals, an ordinance would not, on its face, violate the Act if a group
home for persons with disabilities with more than the pennitted number for a family were not
allowed to locate in a single-family-zoned neighborhood because any group of unrelated people
without disabilities of that number would also be disallowed. A facially neutral ordinance,
however, still may violate the Act if it is intentionally discriminatory (that is, enacted with
discriminatory intent or applied in a discriminatory manner), or if it has an unjustified
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 37 of 227
· discriminatory effect on persons with disabilities. For example, an ordinance that limits the
number of unrelated persons who may constitute a family may· violate the Act if it is enacted for
the purpose of limiting the number of persons with disabilities'who may live in a group home, or
if it has the unjustified discriminatory effect of excluding or limiting group homes in the
jmisdiction. Governments may also violate the Act if they enforce such restrictions more strictly
against group homes than against groups of the same number of unrelated. p·ersons without ·
disabilities who live together in housing. In addition, as discussed in detail below, because the
Act prohibits the denial of reasonable accommodations to rules and policies for persons with
disabilities, a group home that provides housing for a number of persons with disabilities that
exceeds the number allowed under the family definition has the right to seek an exception or
waiver. If the criteria for a reasonable accommodation are met, the permit must be given in that
instance, but the ordinance would not be invalid. 9
14. How does the Supreme Court's ruling in Olmstead apply to the Fair Housing Act?
In Olmstead v: L. C., 10 the Supreme Court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) prohibits the unjustified segregation of persons with disabilities in institutional settings
where necessary services could reasonably be provided iii integrated, community-based settings.
An integrated setting is one that enables individuais with disabilities to live and interact with
individuals without disabilities to the fullest extent possible. By contrast, a segregated ,c;etting
includes congregate settings populated exclusively or primarily by individuals with disabilities.
Although Olmstead did not interpret the Fair Housing Act, the objectives of the Fair Housing Act
and the ADA, as interpreted in Olmstead, are consistent. The Fair Housing Act ensures that
persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to choose the housing where they wish to
live. The ADA and Olmstead ensure that persons with disabilities also have the option to live
and receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The integration
mandate of the ADA andOlmstead can be implemented without impairing the rights protected
by the Fair Housing Act. for example, state and local governments that provide or fund housing,
health care, or support services must comply with the integration mandate by providing these
programs, services, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of
individuals with disabilities. State and local governments may comply with this requirement by
adopting standards for the housing, health care, or support services they provide or fund that are
reasonable, individualized, and specifically tailored to enable individuals with disabilities to live
and interact with individuals without disabilities to the fullest extent possible. Local
· governments should be aware that ordinances and policies that impose additional restrictions on
housing or residential services for persons with disabilities that are not imposed 0-9-housing or
9 Laws that limit the number of occupants per unit do not violate the Act as long as they are reasonable, are applied
to all occupants, and do not operate to discriminate on the basis of disability, familial status, or other characteristics
firotected by the Act.
o 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
11
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 38 of 227
residential services for persons without disabilities are likely to violate the Act. In addition, a
locality would violate the Act and the integration mandate of the ADA and Olmstead if it
required group homes to be concentrated in certain areas of the jurisdiction by, for example,
restricting them from being located in other areas.
15. Can a state or local government impose spacing requirements on the location of
group homes for persons with disabilities?
A "spacing" or "dispersal" requirement generally refers to a requirement that a group
home for persons with disabilities must not be located within a specific distance of another group
home. Sometimes a spacing requirement is designed so it applies only to group homes and
sometimes a spacing requirement is framed more generally and applies to group homes and other
types of uses such as boarding houses, student housing, or even certain types of businesses. In a
community where a certain number of unrelated persons are permitted by local ordinance to
reside together in a home, it would violate the Act for the local ordinance to impose a spacing
requirement on group homes that do not exceed that permitted number of residents because the
• I
spacing requirement would be a condition imposed on persons with disabilities that is not
imposed on persons without disabilities. In situations where a group home seeks a reasonable
accommodation to exceed the number of unrelated persons who are permitted by local ordinance
to reside together, the Fair Housing Act does not prevent state or local governments from taking
into account concerns about the over-concentration of group homes that are located in close
proximity to each other. Sometimes compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA and
Olmstead requires government agencies responsible for licensing or providing housing for
persons with disabilities to consider the location of other group homes when determining what
housing will best meet the needs of the persons being served. Some courts, however, have found
that spacing requirements violate the Fair Housing Act because they deny persons with
disabilities an equal opp01iunity to choose where they will live. Because an across-the-board
spacing requirement may discriminate against persons with disabilities in some residential areas,
any standards that state or local governments adopt should evaluate the location of group homes
for persons with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.
Where a jurisdiction has imposed a spacing requirement on the location of group homes
for persons with disabilities, courts may analyze whether the requirement violates the Act under
; an intent, effects, or reasonable accommodation theory. In cases alleging intentional
discrimination, courts look to a number of factors, including the effect of the requirement on
housing for persons with disabilities; the jurisdiction's intent behind the spacing requirement; the
existence, size, and location of group homes in a given area; and whether there are methods other
than a spacing requirement for accomplishing the jurisdiction's stated purpose. A spacing
requirement enacted with discriminat01y intent, such as for the purpose of appeasing neighbors'
stereotypical fears about living near persons with disabilities, violates the Act. Further, a neutral
12
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 39 of 227
spacing requirement that applies to all housing for groups of unrelated persons may have an
unjustified discriminatory effect on persons with disabilities, thus violating the Act. Jurisdictions
must also consider, in compliance with the Act, requests for reasonable accommodations to any
spacing requirements. .
16. Can a state or local government impose health and safety regulations on group
home operators?
Operators of group homes for persons with disabilities are subject to applicable state and
local regulations addressing health and safety concerns unless those regulations are inconsistent
with the Fair Housing Act or other federal law. Licensing arid other regulatory requirements that
may apply to some group homes must also be consistent with the Fair Housing Act. Such
regulations must not be based on stereotypes about persons with disabilities or specific types of
disabilities. State or local zoning and land use ordinances may not, consistent with the Fair
Housing Act, require individuals with disabilities to receive medical, support, or other services or
supervision that they do not need or want as a condition for allowing a group home to operate.
State and local governments' enforcement of neutral requirenients regarding safety, licensing, .
and other regulatory requirements governing group homes do not violate the Fair Housing Act so
long as the ordinances are enforced in a neutral manner, they do not specifically target group
homes, and they do not haye an unjustified discriminatory effect on persons with disabilities who
wish to reside in group homes.
Governments must also consider requests for reasonable accommodations to licensing
and regulatory requirements and procedures, and grant them where they may be necessary to
afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, as required
by the Act.
17. Can a state or_ local government address suspected criminal act.ivity or fraud and
abuse at group homes for persons with disabilities?
. . . .
The Fair Housing Act does not prevent state and local governments from taking
nondiscriminatory action in response to criminal activity, insurance fraud, Medicaid fraud,
neglect or abuse of residents, or other illegal conduct occurring at group homes, including
reporting complaints to the appropriate state or federal regulatory agency. States and localities
must ensure that actions to enforce criminal or other laws are not taken to target group homes
and are applied equally, regardless of whether the residents of housing are persons with
disabilities. For example, persons with disabilities residing in group homes are entitled to the
same constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure as those without
disabilities.
13
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 40 of 227
18. Does the Fair Housing Act permit a state or local government to implement
strategies to integrate group homes for persons with disabilities in particular
neighborhoods where they are not currently located?
Yes. Some strategies a state or local government could use to further the integration of
group housing for persons with disabilities, consistent with the Act, include af:fumative
marketing or offe1ing incentives. For example,jurisdictions may engage in affirmative
marketing or offer variances to providers of housing for persons with disabilities to locate future
homes in neighborhoods where group homes for persons with disabilities are not cunently
located. But jurisdictions may not offer incentives for a disc1iminatory purpose or that have an
unjustified discriminatory effect because of a protected characteristic.
19. Can a local government consider the fears or prejudices of neighbors in deciding
whether;a group home can be located in a particular neighborhood?
In the same way a local government would violate the law ifit rejected low-income
housing in a community because of neighbors' fears that such housing would be occupied by
racial minorities (see Q&A 5), a local government violates the law if it blocks a group home or
denies a reasonable accommodation request because of neighbors' stereotypical fears or
prejudices about persons with disabilities. This is so even if the individual government decision-
makers themselves do not have biases against persons with disabilities.
Not all community opposition to requests by group homes is necessarily discriminatory.
For example, when a group hoine seeks a reasonable accommodation to operate in an area and
the area has limited on-street parking to serve existing residents, it is not a violation of the Fair
Housing Act for neighbors and local gov,ernment officials to raise concerns that the group home
may create more demand for on-street parking than would a typical family and to ask the
provider to respond. A valid unaddressed concern about inadequate parking facilities could
justify denying the requested accommodation, if a similar dwelling that is not a group home or
similarly situated use would ordina1ily be denied a permit because of such parking concerns. If,
however, the group home shows that the home will not create a need for more parking spaces
than other dwellings or similarly-situated uses located nearby, or submits a plan to provide any
needed off-street parking, then parking concerns would not support a decision to deny the home
a permit.
14
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 41 of 227
Questions and Answers on the Fair Housing Act and
Reasonable Accommodation Requests to Local ~oning and Land Use Laws
20. When does a state or local government violate the Fair Housing Act by failing to
grant a request for a reasonable accommodation?
A state or local government violates the Fair Housing Act by failing to grant a reasonable
accommodation request if (1) the persons requesting the accommodation or, in the case of a
group home, persons residing in or expected to reside in the group home are persons with a
disability under the Act; (2) the state or local government knows or should reasonably be
expected to know of their disabilities; (3) an accommodation in the land use or zoning ordinance
or other rules, policies, practices, or services of the state or locality was requested by or on behalf
of persons with disabilities; ( 4) the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford one or
more persons with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (5) the state or
local government refused to grant, failed to act on, or unreasonably delayed the accommodation
request; and ( 6) the state or local government cannot show that granting the accommodation
would impose an undue financial and adminisfyative burden on the local government or that it
·would fundamentally alter the local government's zoning scheme. A requested acconimodation
may be necessary if there is an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation
and the group home residents' disability. Further information is provided in Q&A 10 above and
the ffiJD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act.
21. Can a local government deny a group home's request for a reasonable
accommodation without violating the Fair Housing Act?
Yes, a local government may deny a group home's request for a reasonable
accommodation if the request was not made by·or on behalf of persons with disabilities (by, for
example, the group home developer or operator) or if there is no disability-related need for the
requested accommodation because there is no relationship between_ the -requested
accommodation and the disabilities of the residents or proposed residents.
In addition, a group home's request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied by a
local government if providing the accommodation is not reasonable-in other words, if it would
impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the local government or it would
fundamentally alter the local government's zoning scheme. The determination of undue
financial and administrative burden must be decided on a case-by-case basis involving various
factors, such as the nature and extent of the administrative burden and the cost of the requested
accommodation to the local government, the financial resources of the local government, and the
benefits that the accommodation woul,.d provide to the persons with disabilities who will reside in
the group. home.
--. 15
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 42 of 227
When a local government refuses an accommodation request because it would pose an
undue financial and administrative burden, the local government should discuss with the
requester whether there is an alternative accommodation that would effectively address the
disability-related needs of the group home's residents without imposing an undue financial and ·
administrative burden. This discussion is called an "interactive process." If an alternative
accommodation would effectively meet the disability-related needs of the residents of the group
home and is reasonable (that is, it would not impose an undue fmancial and administrative
burden or fundamentally alter the local government's zoning scheme), the local government
must grant the alternative accommodation. An interactive process in which the group home and
the local government discuss the disability-related need for the requested accommodation and
possible alternative accommodations is both required under the Act and helpful to all concerned,
because.it often results in an effective accommodation for the group home that does not pose an
undue financial and administrative burden or fundamental alteration for the local government
22. What is the procedure for requesting a reasonable accommodation?
The reasonable accommodation must actually be requested by or on behalf of the
individuals with disabilities who reside or are expected to reside in the group home. When the
request is made, it is not necessary for the specific individuals who would be expected to live in
the group home to be identified. The Act does not require that a request be made in a particular
manner or at a particular time. The gi'oup home does not need to mention the Fair Housing Act
or use the words "reasonable accommodation" when making a reasonable accommodation
request. The gi·oup home must, however, make the request in a manner that a reasonable person
would understand to be a disability-related request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a ·
rule, policy, practice, or service. When making a request for an exception, change, or adjustment
toa local land use-or zoningregulation orpolicy;-the group home should explain whattype·of· --
accommodation is being requested and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent
or known by the local government, explain the relationship between the accommodation and the
disabilities of the gi·oup home residents.
A request for a reasonable accommodation.can be made either orally or in writing. · It is
often helpful for both the group home and the local government if the reasonable accommodation
request is made in writing. This will help prevent misunderstandings regarding what is being
requested or whether or when the request was made.
Where a local land use or zo~g code contains specific procedures for seeking a
departure from the general rule, courts have decided that these procedures should ordinaiily be
followed. If no procedure is specified, or if the procedure is umeasonably burdensome or
intrusive or involves significant delays, a request for a reasonable accommodation may,
16
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 43 of 227
nevertheless, be made in some other way, and a local government is obligated to grant it if the
requested accommodation meets the criteria discussed in Q&A 20, above.
Whether or not the local land use or zoning code contains a specific procedure for
requesting a reasonabl~ accommodation or other exception to a zoning regulation, if local
government officials have previously made statements or otherwise indicated that an application
for a reasonable accommodation would not receive fair consideration, or if the procedure itself is
discriminatory, then persons with disabilities living in a group home, and/6r its operator, have
the right to file a Fair Housing Act complaint in court to request an order for a reasonable
accommodation to the local zoning regulations.
23. Does the Fair Housing Act require local governments to adopt formal reasonable
accommodation procedures?
The Act does not require a local governmentto adopt formal procedures for processing
requests for reasonable accommodations to local land use or zoning codes. DOJ and ffiJD
nevertheless strongly encourage local governments to adopt formal procedures for identifying
and processing reasonable accommodation requests and provide training for government officials
and staff as to application of the procedures. Procedures for reviewing and acting on reasonable
accommodation requests will help state and local governments meet their obligations under the
Act to respond to reasonable accommodation requests and implement reasonable
accommodations promptly. Local governments are also encouraged to ensure that the
procedures to request a reasonable accommodation or other exception to local zoning regulations
are well known throughout the community by, for example, posting them at a readily accessible
location and in a digital format accessible to persons with disabilities on the government's
website. If a jurisdiction chooses to adopt formal procedures for reasonable accommodation
requests, the procedures cannot be onerous or require information beyond what is necessary to
show that the individual 4as a disability and that the requested accommodation is related to that
disability. For example, in most cases, an individual's medicai record or detailed information
about the nature of a person's disability is not necessary for this inquiry. In addition, officials
and staff must be aware that any procedures for requesting a reasonable accommodation must
also be flexible to accommodate the needs of the individual making a request; including
accepting and considering requests that are not made through the official procedure. The
adoption of a reasonable accommodation procedure, however, will not cure a zoning ordinance
that treats group homes differently than other residential housing with the same number of
unrelated persons.
17
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 44 of 227
24. What if a local governme.nt fails to act promptly on a reasonable accommodation
request?
A local government has an obligation to provide prompt responses to reasonable
accommodation requests, whether or not a fmmal reasonable accommodation procedure exists.
A local government's undue delay in responding to a reasonable accommodation request may be
deemed a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
25. Can a local government enforce its zoning code against a group home that violates
the zoning code but has not requested a reasonable accommodation?
The Fair Housing Act does not prohibit a local government from enforcing its zoning
code against a group home that has violated the local zoning code, as long as that code is not
discriminato1y or enforced in a discriminatory manner. If, however, the group home requests a
reasonable accommodation when faced with enforcement by the locality, the locality still must
consider the reasonable accommodation request. A request for a reasonable accommodation
may be made.at any time, so at that point, the local government must consider whether there is a
relationship between the disabilities of the residents of the group home and the need for the
requested accommodation. If so, the locality must grant the requested accommodation unless
doing so would pose a fundamental alteration to the local government's zoning scheme or an
undue financial and administrative burden to the local government.
Questions and Answers on Fair Housing Act Enforcement of
Complaints Involving Land Use and Zoning
26. How are Fair Housing Act complaints involving state and local land use laws and
· practices handled by HUD ·and· DOJ?-· · ·· ·_ -· -· ---·
The Act gives HUD the power to receive, investigate, and conciliate complaints of
discrimination, including complaints that a state or local government· has discriminated in
exercising its land use and zoning powers. HUD may not issue a charge of discrimination
pertaining to "the legality of any State or local zoning or other land use law or ordinance."
Rather, after investigating, HUD refers matters it believes may be meritorious to DOJ, which, in
· its discretion, may decide to bring suit against the state or locality within 18 months after the
practice at issue occurred or te1minated. DOJ may also bring suit by exercising its authority to
initiate iitigation alleging a patt<::m or practice of discrimination or a denial of rights to a group of
persons which raises an issue of general public importance.
IfHUD determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe that there may be a
violation, it will close an investigation without referring the matter to DOJ. But a HUD or DOJ
18
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 45 of 227
decision not to proceed with a land use or zoning matter does not foreclose private plaintiffs.
from pursuing a claim.
Litigation can be an expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain process for all parties.
HUD and DOJ encourage parties to land use disputes to explore reasonable alternatives to
litigation, including alternative dispute resolution procedures, like mediation or conciliation of
the HUD compiaint. HUD attempts to conciliate all complaints under the Act that it receives,
including those involving land use or zoning laws. In addition, it is DOJ's policy to offer
prospective state or local governments the opportunity to engage in pre-suit settlement
.negotiations, except in the most unusual circumstances ..
27. How can I find more information?
For more information on reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications under the
Fair Housing Act:
• HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act,
available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-policy-statements-and-guidance-0
or http://www.hud.gov/ offices/fheo/libra:ry/huddoj statement.pdf.
• HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications under the Fair Housing Act,
available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-policy-statements-and-guidance-0
· or http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/reasonable modifications mar08.pdf.
For more information on state and local governments' obligations under Section 504:
• · HUD website afliflp:7 /portaLhuclgov!hudporfal/HUD?src~/program offices/ ·
fair housing . equal opp/disabilities/sect504 .
. For more information on state and local governments' obligations under the ADA and Olmstead:
• U.S. Department of Justice website, www.ADA.gov, or call the ADA inf01mation line at
(800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).
e Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L. C., available at
http://www.ada.gov./olmstead/q&a olmstead.htm.
• Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the Role of Housing
in Accomplishing the Goals of Olmstead, available at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudp01ial/ documents/huddoc?id=O lmsteadGuidnc0604 l 3. odf.
19
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 46 of 227
For more info1mation on the requirement to affumatively further fair housing:
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, 80 Fed. Reg. 42,272 (July 16, 2015) (to be
codified at 24 C.F.R. pts. 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903).
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Version 1, Affumatively
Furtheripg Fair Housing Rule Guidebook (2015), available at
https:/ /www .hudexchange.info/resources/doduments/ AFFH-Rule-Guidebook.pdf.
• . Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Vol. 1, Fair Housing Planning Guide (1996), available at
http://www.hud.gov/ offices/fheo/images/fhpg. pdf.
For more information on nuisance and crime-free ordinances:
• Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the
Enforcement of Local Nuisance and Crime-Free Housing Ordinances Against Victims of
Domestic Violence, Other Crime Victims, and Others Who Require Police or Emergency
Services (Sept. 13, 2016), available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/
huddoc?id=FinalNuisanceOrdGdnce.pdf.
20
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 47 of 227
ATTACHMENT 2
League of CA Cities-SLH Challenges of Implementing ADA & FHA
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 48 of 227
Notes: ----------------------------------------
League of California Cities® 2016 Spring Conference
Marriott, Newport Beach
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 50 of 227
REGULATING SOBER LIVING HOMES AND THE CHALLENGE OF
IMPLEMENTING THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND THE AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT
I. Introduction
T. Peter Pierce
Richards I Watson I Gershon
In the last 10 to 15 years, a unique type of group home has
proliferated throughout California -the sober living home operated and
managed not by the residents who live in the home, but by corporations
and other business entities that house dozens of people in a single
residence. These large homes often generate secondary effects burdening
public services more so than other single-family uses, including smaller
sober living homes, with fewer people. Quite commonly, large sober living
homes are clustered in one residential area of a city such that smaller
residential uses in the area experience disproportionately the impacts of the
larger homes.
, As used here, the term "large sober living home" refers to an
unlicensed group home with seven or more residents. Other than
occupancy restrictions applicable to all residential uses, there is no limit
.. under federal Taw--or Califorrua law on the number of persons who may
live in a large sober living home.
Nothing in federal law categorically precludes a city from applying
zoning laws to a sober living home, but those laws cannot discriminate
against persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. California
law requires cities to treat a licensed /'alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or
treatment facility'' with six or fewer residents the same as it .treats any
single-family residence. (Health and Safety Code section 11834.23.)1 An
1 The term "sober living home" as used here means an unlicensed group home which provides
the same services as an "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility." The latter
term is broadly defined under California law as any premises that provides "24.:.hour nonmedical
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 52 of 227
unlicensed "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility" is
illegal under California law. (Health and Safety Code section 11834.30.) A
city may therefore regulate an unlicensed sober living home with six or
fewer residents without running afoul of California licensing laws, but
federal law still constrains that regulation. Sober. livinghomes with six or
fewer residents are less likely to generate negative ·secondary impacts, and
less likely to create an institutionalized atmosphere, than their larger
counterparts.
This paper explores some of the options for regulating large sober ·
living homes, and how cities may exercise those options consistently with
the federal Fair Housing Act (as amended in 1988 by the Fair Housing
Amendments Act) (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).2
Also discussed below are the obstacles cities have faced in court, and
practical tips for avoiding those obstacles.
II. · The Federal Government's Position Regarding Local Regulation
of Group Homes
The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development in August 2015 updated their joint statement on
____ __ _ _____ ~' Grnup.Hom£s,. Laca1Land_Us_e,. and the_..Eair..Ho_using..A.ct~~(11D QJlHIID
Joint Statement.") A copy of the DOJ/HUD Joint Statement is attached to
this paper. It includes a number of questions frequently posed by local
officials, and provides answers to those questions. Those answers must be
approached with extreme caution. Local officials walk a fine line in
attempting to implement a policy that seemingly meets with federal
residential services to adults" recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. (Health and Safety
Code section 11834.02, subd. (a).) Those services, which are customarily provided in sober
living homes, include group sessions, individual sessions, educational sessions, and treatment
planning. (9 Cal. Code. Reg. § 10501.)
2 Persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction are disabled under both the FHA and the
ADA. Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156-57 (9th
Cir. 2013). --
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 53 of 227
approval under one part of the DOJ/HUD Joint Statement, but comes very
close to running afoul of federal law as articulated in another part.·
The federal government recognizes that cities, under certain'
circumstances, may treat sober living homes differently than they treat
other single-family uses:3
"A local government that believes a particular area within its
boundaries has its 'fair share' of group homes could offer
incentives to providers to locate future homes in other
neighborhoods.
However, some state and local governments have· tried to
address this concern by enacting laws requiring that group
homes be at a certain minimum distance from one another. The
Department of Justice and HUD take the position, and most
courts that have addressed the issue agree, that density
restrictions are generally inconsistent with the Fair Housing
Act. We also believe, however, that if a neighborhood came to
be composed largely of group homes, that could adversely
affect individuals with disabilities and would be inconsistent
with the objective of integrating persons with disabilities into
the community. Especially in the licensing and regulatory
process, it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a
group home. A consideration of over-concentration could be
cons~dered in this. context. This objective does not, however,
justify requiring separations which have the effect of
foreclosing group homes from locating in entire
neighborhoods."
(DOJ/HUD Joint Statement, p. 4.)
3 Even where a city. does not violate federal law, a city could still violate California law by
treating a licensed sober living home differently than other single-family uses. Again, California
Health and Safety Code section 11834.23 requires cities to treat a licensed "alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facility" with six or fewer residents the same as it treats a single-
family residence. ·
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 54 of 227
As the case law discussed below shows, courts look skeptically upon
a city's self-serving P!Onouncement that a new zoning regulation aims to
integrate residents· of sober living homes into the community. This paper
aims to assist local officials in navigating the pitfalls of federal law as
interpreted and applied by the courts. 4 .
III. Challenges in Implementing the FHA and ADA.
The most common type of FHA or ADA challenge to a zoning law
asserts discriminatory ti:eatment (also known as disparate treatment). A
local zoning law that professes to protect re?idents of sober living homes
commonly faces a "facial". challenge or an "as-applied" challenge under ·a
discriminatory treatment theory. 5
No citation to authority is needed for the well-established principle
that a zoning law discriminates on its face when by its very terms disabled
persons are treated less favorably than non-disabled persons. In those
circumstances, courts invalidate the law and it can no longer be applied at
all.
If a zoning law is facially neutral (i.e., it does not discriminate on its
. .
face), it may nevertheless be invalid as applied in particular circumstanc~s.
Often, these "as-applied" challenges result in invalidation of a specific
d . . I d -1~-ti b 1.... . • 1 . . ff . ec1s1on..on a_ an. .. use_appllca . Dn, __ ut b.Le_zomng. aw r_emams.ro.e . .e.ct on_ ......... ··-·
thetheory that it may be validly applied in other circumstances.
In the FHA and ADA contexts, however, a facially neutral zoning law
that has been applied in a discriminatqry manner may lead not only to
4 Although this paper does not expressly address the restrictions on local regulation-imposed by ·
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), courts generally employ the same legal
anaiysis in evaluating local laws under PEHA as they do in evaluating local laws under the FHA
and ADA. See generally Budnickv. Town of Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008);
Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. Fair Employment and Hous. Comm 'n, 121 Cal.App.4th
1578, 1591 (2004).
5 This paper does not examine the other two theories under which an FHA or ADA violation may
be established: (I) Disparate impact theory (recently reaffirmed in Texas Dept. of Housing and
Community Affairs v. Jnclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015); and (2)
Failure to provide a reasonable acCOilllI!Odation with respect to land use restrictions.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 55 of 227
invalidation of the specific decision applying the law, but also to
invalidation of the law ~tself. Although we often think of Ii as-applied"
challenges to a facially neutral law as a challenge only to a particular
application of that law, it is a mistake to assume in FHA and ADA cases
that a facially neutral law will be upheld simply because discrimination is
not apparent on its face.
This paper first examines FHA and ADA challenges to local zoning
laws that are alleged to discriminate on their face. Next, the paper
addresses cases in which local zoning laws neutral on their face are
nevertheless invalid altogether, or invalid in particular circumstances.
A. Challenges to Local Zoning Laws That Discriminate On Their
Face
In Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 490 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007)
(Community House), the Ninth Circuit explained the standard for
establishing a prima fade case of facial discrimination under the FHA ..
"[A] plaintiff makes out a prima fade case of intentional discrimination
under the [Fair Housing Act] merely by showing that a protected group
has been subjected to explicitly differential -i.e., discriminatory -
treatment." Id. at 1050 (internal citation and quotation omitted). A
governmental agency that has adopted facially discriminatory zoning rules
I/must show either: '(1) that the restriction benefits the protected class or (2)
that it responds to the legitimate safety concerns raised by the individuals
affected, rather than based on stereotypes:" Id. at 105,0 (internal citation
omitted).
A non-profit corporation in Community House had formerly managed
a city-owned homeless shelter. The corporation sued the City under the
FHA after a religious organization to which the City had later leased the
shelter instituted a male-only policy. The complaint asserted that the male-
only policy facially discriminated on the basis of gender and familial status.
The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff could likely establish a prima fade
case of discrimination under the FHA. As justifications for the male~only
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 56 of 227
. policy, the City asserted general safety concerns and the need to house.
homeless men so that a second facility could be made available for women
and children. Community House, 490 F.3d at 1051. The court held that the
City might later in the litigation prove that safety concerns warranted a
male,-only policy, but tha.t the plaintiff had raised questions that were
· serious enough to warrant the issuance of an injunction. Id . at 1052.
Community House was followed by the District Court in Nevada Fair
Housing Center, Inc. v. Clark Cd ., 2007 U.S.Dist.Lexis 12800 (D.Nev. 2007)
(Nevada Fair Housing). In that case, the County's group home ordinance
prohibited group homes for the disabled .that housed more than six ·
persons. Id. at *18. The ordinance also required a special use permit for
homes housing six or fewer persons to locate within 1500 feet of a similar
home. Id. at *18. A non-profit corporation advocating for housing rights
filed suit under the FHA, asserting that the ordinance facially
discriminated against the .disabled. Id. at *1-*2. The District court held that
the County's ordinance was facially discriminatory and failed the test
adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Community _Hquse. The County argued that
the spacing requirement was necessary to coll}ply with state law and to
prevent the clustering of group homes in certain areas. Id. at *26. The court
refrained froin addressing whether the relevant state law violated the FHA;
noting instead that the County's Ordinance "did not track the language of
[the statute].") Id. at *27. The court also found that the County failed to
provide any evidence that its Ordinance promoted deinstitutionalization.
Ibid.
More recently, the Central District of California rejected a facial .
challenge to an ordinance of the City of Costa Mesa regulating sober living
homes. Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa,
(unpublished Order, dis1nissing lawsuit, filed April 21, 2015). Costa Mesa
requires residential uses in its R-1 residential zone to function as "single
housekeeping units." The primary hallmarks of a."single housekeeping
unit" in Costa Mesa are (1) that household members share responsibilities
and expenses; (2) that members have "some control" over the membership
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 57 of 227
of the household; and (3) that the residential activities of the household are
conducted on a nonprofit basis.
Costa Mesa defines a fl sober living home" as a group of persons in
recovery from alcohol and/or drug addiction who are considered disabled
under federal or state law. Sober living homes do not include residences
operating as a single-housekeeping unit. A sober living home,, which is by
definition not a single housekeeping unit,, may operate in the R-1
residential zone only with a special use permit or a reasonable
accommodation.
The findings in Costa Mesa's ordinance establishing these
requirements include concerns that its neighborhoods not become
institutionalized with sober living homes such that residents of those
home~ fail to integrate into the community.
Plaintiffs challenged Costa Mesa's ordinance on its face. They
alleged that the ordinance was born of discriminatory animus by City
officials; that the ordinance's sp~cial use permit and reasonable
accommodation processes are discriminatory; and that the City subjected
them. to embarrassment and ridicule by imposing a condition on any
special use permit that a sober living home not be located within 650 feet of
another sober living home or a state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse
recovery or treatment facility.
The court found that plaintiffs had not stated a facial challenge under
either the FHA or the ADA. The court found that Costa Mesa's ordinance
treats sober living homes more favorably than other residential uses that
also did not qualify as single housekeeping units. The ordinance provides
the special use permit option for sober living homes to locate.in the R-1
residential zone; that option is not available to other residential uses with
only non-disabled residents.
The court also concluded that Costa Mesa's 650-foot separation rule
for sober living homes is not facially unreasonable. To the extent plaintiffs
challenged the special use permit and reasonable accommodation
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 58 of 227
processes, their claims constituted unripe as-applied challenges because
they had not yet sought either approval. The court also rejected equal
protection and due process claims. Notably, the Court did not expressly
rule upon or discuss the allegations that Costa Mesa had adopted the
ordinance for a discriminatory purpose. The court entered judgment in
favor of Costa Mesa.
Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment. The Ninth Circuit has
enjoined enforcement of Costa Mesa's ordinance pending further court
order. An appellate mediation conference is scheduled forMay 17, 2016.
The above cases bring to mind the rule that local government may
not defeat a facial challenge simply by implementing an approval
procedure for group homes (e.g., a use permit or reasonable
accommodation program). In Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment,
Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999), operators of a methadone
clinic announced their plans to open in the City, which enacted a _. -
moratorium against substance abuse clinics in response to the proposal. Id.
at 727-28. The basis for the moratorium was the City's finding that the
----elimc-weuld-attract-tlrug dealers-and-lead-te-an-inerease-in-er-ime-in-the---------: -------
surrounding area. Id at 729. The clinic filed suit under the ADA and the
Rehabilitation act, and sought a preliminary injunction, The District Court
denied the request for an injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and
remanded the matter. Because the clinic had alleged that the moratorium
was facially discriminatory, the District Court had erred by requiring the
. .
clinic to show that the City had failed to provide a reasonable
accommodation. Id. at 733-734. Facially discriminatory ordinances are not
subject to a reasonable accommodation analysis, and the availability of a
reasonable accommodation procedure cannot rescue a facially
discriminatory ordinance.
A separate strand of facial challenge involves a facially valid
regulation where the government uses a proxy (i.e. service dogs) as a
substitute for identifying the protected class (handicapped). In Children's
Alliance v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D.Wash. 1997) (Children's
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 59 of 227
Alliance), an brdinance required group homes to be separated by 1000 feet
and limited to six or fewer residents. The defining difference between a
Fl family" and a group, home under the ordinance was the addition of staff
operating at the latter. Id. at 1493-94. The District Court held "that this use
of 'staff' was a proxy for a classification based on the presence of
individuals under eighteen and the handicapped as both groups require
supervision and assistance." Id. at 1496. Thus, the ordinance was facially
. discriminatory. The dispersal did not sufficiently benefit the handicapped
by preventing the development of institutional neighborhoods because the
City then had no group homes. The court also remarked that any alleged
benefit would be closely scrutinized and found sufficient only if the
benefits of the regulation clearly outweighed its burdens. Id. at 1499
(internal citations omitted). The District Court also held that the City's
repeated statements that it would be willing to reasonably accommodate
the plaintiff's group home was insufficient to rebut a finding of facial
discrimination. Id. at 1500.
Proxy cases are common. See, e.g., Mc Wright v. Alexander, 982 F.2d
222,228 (7th Cir. 1992) (gray hair may be a proxy for age); Erie County ··
Retirees Ass'n v. County of Erie, 220 F.3d 193,211 (3rd Cir. 2000) ("Medicare
status is a direct proxy f~r age."); Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Wind Gap Mun. Auth.,
421 F.3d 170, 179 (3d Cir. 2005) (service dogs or wheelchairs are a proxy for
handicapped status).
Zoning laws that discriminate on their face against disabled persons
face substantial obstacles in court. Before a city adopts an ordinance which
on its face treats disabled persons differently than non-disabled persons, it
should consider the following tips:
■ To survive a facial challenge under federal and California anti-
discrimination laws, government must make a concrete evidentiary
showing that the plaintiffs themselves pose a legitimate threat to public
safety. It is not sufficient to rely upon stereotypes of unidentified
people who share the same disability as plaintiffs.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 60 of 227
■ A generalized con~ern about retaining neighborhood character is
likely insufficient to make the requited showing of a legitimate threat
to public safety.
■ Any regulation which treats a protected class differently than others,.
no matter how seemingly innocuous, or even well-intentioned, is ill-
advised. For example, persons in recovery are being harassed by
residents who did not know that a sober living home was opening in
the community. In response, the municipality adopts a neighbor
notification law with the intent of diffusing the situation and
assisting the residents in the sober living home. That law is invalid
because· it treats sober living homes for persons who are legally
disabled differently than it treats other residential. uses.
■ Rigid distancing requirements face a high risk of being found by a
court to be facially invalid, but an unsettled question is whether
distancing requirements may be considered as one factor among·
others when clustering of housing serving the disabled-has occurred
in one area.
B. Challenges to Local Zoning Laws That are Facially Neutral
. '
. A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discriminatory
application of a facially neutral ordinance in one of two ways.
First, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discriminatory
treatment by simply producing '"director circumstantial evidence
demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not
motivated' the defendant and that the defendant's actions adversely
affected the plaintiff in some way." Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of
Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) (Pacific Shores), citing
McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1122 (9th Cir. 2004) (McGinest).
This standard is at times referred to as the "direct evidence test."
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 61 of 227
Second, and alternatively, a plaintiff may satisfy the elements of the
test set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1981)
(McDonnell Douglas). Pacific Shores, 730 F.3d at 1158. Plaintiff establishes a
prima fade case of dis.crim.inatory treatment under McDonnell Douglas by
showing: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected group, (2) plaintiff sought
use and enjoyment of a particular dwelling ( or type ~f dwelling, or housing
in a particular '.?One) and was qualified to use and enjoy such dwelling; (3)
plaintiff was denied the opportunity to use and enjoy such dwelling ( or
zoning) despite being qualified; and (4) defendant permitted use and
enjoyment of such a dwelling ( or zoning) by a similarly situated party
during a period relatively near the time plaintiff was being denied use and .
· enjoyment. See Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d ~00, 305 (9th Cir. 1997).
(Gamble).
"[I]t is not particularly significant whether [a plaintiff] relies on the
McDonnell Douglas [factors] or, whether he relies· on direct or circumstantial
evidence of discriminatory intent" to establish a prima fade case of
· disc~iminatory treatment. McGinest, 360 F.3d at 1123. "[T]he McDonnell
Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents d]!ect evidence of
discrimination." Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469. U.S. 111, 121, 105
S. Ct. 613, 83 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1985).
If a plaintiff establishes a pr:ima fade case of discriminatory
treatment, "the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its action." Gamble, 104 F.3d at 305 .. If the
defendant articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action,
"the burden shifts to [plaintiff] to present evidence that [the] reason
[asserted by defendant] is pretextuaL. .. " Gamble, 104 F.3d at 306. Whether
furnishing direct evidence that discriminatory intent motivated the
challenged action, or proceeding instead under the McDonnell Douglas
. framework, a plaintiff must respond to defendant's articulated reason by
producing "some evidence suggesting that the challenged action 'was due
in part or whole to discriminatory intent.' [Citation.]" Budnick v. Town of
Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008) (Budnick).
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 62 of 227
A survey of cases reveals that zoning laws are more vulnerable to
successful challenge under the "direct evidence test" than _under the
McDonnell Douglas factors. This appears to arise from differences between
the two approaches with respect to the reasons behind the challenged law.
The "direct evidence test" focuses more on reasons or motivations, whereas
the McDonnell Douglas test focuses more on the mechanics of the
challenged decision. The McDonnell Douglas test requires a showing that
' . the government treated the plaintiff les_s favorably than a similarly situated
third party. The II direct evidence teE>t" does not look to comparator
evidence. Thus, the II direct evidence test" is more likely to lead to
. complete invalidation of a facially neutral law on the ground that it was
adopted for discriminatory reasons, and ~e McDonnell Douglas test is more
likely to lead to invalidation of only a particular c1pplication of a facially
neutral law. This paper addresses only the "direct evidence test."
1. Establishing a prim.a facie case under the direct evidence
test.
a. Case Law
The somewhat malleable factors comprising the direct evidence test
flow from the seminal decision in Village of Arlington Heights, et al. v.
Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (Arlington Heights).
"Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating
factor demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct ·
evidence of intent as may be available." Id. at 266: Thus, the Supreme
Court articulated several nonexclusive criteria which courts should
evaluate in deciding whether the challenged action was motivated by
discriminatory intent. "The historical background of the decision is one
evidentiary source" to examine. Id. at 267. "The specific sequence of
events leading up to the challenged decision also may shed some light on
the decisionmaker' s purposes." Id. at 267. "Departures from the normal
procedural sequence also mightafford evidence that improper purposes
ate playing a role. Substantive departures too may be relevant[.]" Id. at
267. "The legislative or administrative history may be highly relevant,
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 63 of 227
especially where there are contemporary statements by members of the
· decisionmaking body, minutes of its meetings, or reports." Id. at 268.
Arlington Heights involved race-based discrimination, but its list of criteria
has guided courts in evaluating claims brought by disabled persons, as set
forth below.
Courts have applied the Arlington Heights criteria in various·
. formulations. Some courts have invalidated regulations based on fewer
than all of the criteria. In many cases, plaintiffs rely only upon one or two
of .the criteria, with mixed results. There is no bright-line rule articulating
the number of Arlington Heights factors that must be satisfied to establish a
prima fade case of discriminatory intent under the direct evidence test.
Nor is there a rule establishing which particular factors must be satisfied.
Courts enjoy considerable discretion in employing and weighing the
factors in each case.
(i) Recent Ninth Circuit Cases
In Pacific Shores, the Ninth Circuit applied the Arlington Heights
factors to conclude that plaintiffs had marshaled strong evidence
· warran~g a trial under the direct evidence test. Newport Beach's
ordinance regulating group homes did not single out sober living homes
on its face; "the Ordinance facially imposed restrictions on some other -
types of group living arrangements as well." 730 F.3d at 1147. The Court
nevertheless examined the circumstances surrounding the preparation,
adoption and implementation of the ordinance and concluded that "the
City's purpose in enacting the Ordinance was to exclude group homes
from most residential districts and to bring about the closure of existing
group homes. in those areas." Ibid.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied upon the following
factors:
■ Some of the restrictions on sober living homes originally had
applied to properties rented to vacationing tourists, who would
generate the same secondary effects as sober living home
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 64 of 227
residents, but after objections from those in the vacation rental
industry, the City lifted the restrictions on the vacation properties.
730 F.3d at 1147.
■ Concerned citizens in the community used derogatory terms when
referring to residents of sober living homes, and the Court stated
that the City appeared to adopt its ordinance in response to those
comments. 730 F.3d at 1149.
■ Before the ordinance was adopted, the City Council formed a
committee comprised of two council members, a. planning
commissioner, and private citizens to review laws governing
residential uses and to recommend solutions to preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood. 730 F.3d at 1149.
■ Before the ordinance was adopted, City staff created a task force to
locate sober living homes, conduct surveillance of them,. and
enforce the existing zoning code against them. 730 F.3c:l at 1162,
1164. ·
■ Before the ordinance was adopted, the City Council created an ad
hoc committee of a minority of its members and met privately off
the record with legal counsel to prepare the ordinance. The City
Council had never before created an ad hoc committee of its -
members to assist in preparing an ordinance. 730 F.3d at 1151,
1164.
■ Before the ordinance was adopted, City staff disu-ibuted surveys
to residents, many of whom lived in neighborhoods opposed to
sober living homes, to inquire of their views of group uses. The
City had never before done this with respect to proposed
legislation. 730 F.3d at 1150, 1164.
· ■ One City Council member inquired on the record about whether
sober living homes are effective in treating alcoholism or drug ·
addiction. 730 F.3d at 1149.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 65 of 227
■ Another City Council member said the City's goal in preparing the
ordinance was to ensure that no new sober living homes opened
in the community; and that through strict enforcement of the
ordinance, the existing over-concentration of those homes would
subside. The Council member also characterized the ordinance as
the most aggressive challenge in California to the over-
concentration of sober living homes, and invited residents to judge
the Council by the actual results generated by the ordinance. 730
F.3d at 1152.
■ One planning commissioner said there was no need to be
concerned about issues of discrimination, and that those issues are
better saved for the courtroom. 730 F.3d at 1151.
■ After the ordinance was adopted and the 90-day period to seek a
use permit to continue operating had lapsed, the City sent
abatement notices to sober living homes, but not to other non-
conforming uses (until much later). 730 F.3d 1154f 1162.
■ Public hearings on use permit applications submitted by sober
living home operators were attended by residents who repeated
the same derogatory comments they had made about sober living
residents before the ordinru:i-ce was adopted. 730 F.3d at 1154 ..
The Ninth Circuit concluded that all of these factors together clearly
constituted an inference that the ordinance was enacted with the
discriminatory purpose of harming sober living homesf and that plaintiffs
were entitled to proceed to trial on their discriminatory treatment claim.
730 F.3d at 1164. The City could not rebut the inference of discriminatory
intent just because the ordinance discr~inated against non-disabled
· groups also. 730 F.3d at 1159-60.
Plaintiffs also produced evidence that the ordinance adversely
affected them. The use permit and reasonable accommodation applications
submitted by plaintiffs were denied except for one reasonable
accommodation application that was granted on the condition that no more
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 66 of 227
than 12 residents live in each of two houses. 730 F.3d ~t 1154. The
ordinance led to the closure of one-third of the sober living homes in the
city and restricted new ones to multi-family zones; the city gran_ted few use
permit and reasonable accommodation applications submitted by other
sober living home operators. 730 F.3d at 1155, 1165. Plaintiffs expended
substantial time and money to comply with the use permit and reasonable
accommodation application procedures. 730 F.3d at 1165.
In contrast, the Ninth Circuit in Budnick looked to the legislative
~ecord and concluded that comments made by neighbors did not evince a
discriminatory motive on the part of the town. The court explained:
"[P]ermitting town councils, planning commissions, and the like to
hear the views of concerned citizens and other interested parties
about proposed projects is the essence of all zoning hearings. There is
no evidence in the record to suggest that the cited comments or
similar ones, which were a small part of the total comments,
motivated the commissioners or Town Council members to vote
against the [Special Use Permit], and we decline to make such an
inference based solely on the fact that the comments were made."
Budnick, 518 F.3d at 1117-18.
Although not a group home case, the Ninth Circuit most recently
employed the Arlington Heights factors, and cited extensively to Pacific
Shores, in Avenue 6E Investments, Inc. v ; City of Yuma, 2016 WL_ 1169080 (9th
Cir. March 25, 2016) (Avenue 6E). In that case, th~ Ninth Circuit reversed
the dismissal of a discriminatory treatment claim under the FHA. Id. at *1.
. Avenue 6E arose from the denial of an application to rezone land t6
permit higher density development in a neighborhood populated largely
by Hispanic residents. 2016 WL 1169080, *1. The Ninth Circuit held that
the plaintiff developers had stated a plausible claim under the FHA based
on the following allegations:
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 67 of 227
■ The City Council denied the application despite the advice of its
own experts to grant the application. Id. at *l, *3.
■ The application for rezoning was the only one of 76 such
applications that the City: denied in the last three years; all others
were granted. Id. at *l, *5.
■ The City Council capitulated to the animus expressed by
opponents of high density development. Id. at *l, *2, *4, *8, *9.
The City Council received letters and comments tinged with
discriminatory animus toward Hispanic residents. Id. at *4, *8-*10.
The City Council then denied the application, overruling the
recommendations of the zoning commission and planning staff to
approve it. Id. at *11.
Thus the Ninth Circuit observed: "The presence of community
animus can support a finding of discriminatory motives by government
officials even if the officials do not personally hold such views." 2016 WL
1169080 at *8. "[U]nlike in Budnick, community members' opposition to
Developers' application, using language indicating animus toward a .
protected class, provides circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent
by the City." Id. at *9. Parsing the comments of community members, the
Ninth Circuit iterated that "[w]e have held., however, that the use of 'code .
words' may demonstrate discriminatory intent." Id . at *9. The court
focused on comments such as "the type of people living in ... large
households;" or who "used single-family homes as multi-family
dwellings;" or who "own numerous vehicles which they park in the streets
and yards, [ and] fail to maintain their residences, and lack pride of
ownership." Id. at *10. These comments, the court found, reflect
"stereotypes of Hispanics that would be well-understood in Yuma." Id. at
*10.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 68 of 227
(ii) Cases Outside the Ninth Circuit
In numerous other cases,. courts have attributed the discriminatory
comments of members of the community; or their concerns, to the
governing board of the local agency, and have found discrimination based
in part on those comments or concerns.
. In Stewart B. McKinney Foundation, Inc v. Town Plan and Zoning Com.,
790 F.Supp. 1197 (D.Conn. 1992), the plaintiff, a nonprofitorganization,
sought to operate a group home for HIV-infected persons. The town sent.
to plaintiff thirteen written questions about the operational details of the
house and the medical needs of its inten_ded occupants. Id. at 1204-1205.
The town zoning commisston determined the plaintiff needed to obtain a
"special exception" to its zoning requirements in order to operate the home
in a residential neighborhood. The plaintiff had not applied for a special
exception, and asked the commission to reverse its decision, arguing that
its proposed group home complied with the town's definition of "family"
for purposes of the zoning code. Id. at 1205-06. The Commission refused
on the grounds that special exceptions are required for both "charitable
uses" and "nursing homes.". Ibid.
The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction against the special
exception requirement. Id. at 1207. The District Court issued the injunction
and found that plaintiff was likely to prevail on its discriminatory
treatment claim under the FHA. The court relied heavily on the comments
of opponents of the group home. Those comments were evidence that the
commission acted with discriminatory intent Id. at 1212-1213. The court
· also found that the commission had discriminated because it had departed .
from its normal procedures by (1) requiring a special exception for a group
that qualified as a "family," (2) requesting that the plaintiff answer ·the
thirteen questions before any use was formally proposed; and (3)
conducting a hearing in the absence of any application by the plaintiff. Id.
at 1213.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 69 of 227
In Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County, 823 F.Supp. 1285
(D. Md.1993), the Distric_t Court reviewed several aspects of a county's
licensing program for group homes for the elderly. The County allowed
such homes by right in all residential zones, but (1) required the operators
of the group homes to send letters to each neighboring property owner
setting _forth their plans to operate, (2) subjected each proposed_home to a
prograp,. review board hearing; and (3) excluded from group homes
persons who were e~otionally, mentally, or socially incapable of taking
action for self-preservation under emergency conditions, or who were
insufficiently mobile to exit a building in an emergency. Id. at 1289-91.
The District Court held that all three of these provisions violated the
FHA. Id. at 1302: The neighbor notification requirement was declared
facially invalid because it applied to· no other groups and was unsupported
by any rational basis. Id. at 1296. The notification rule instead caused a
great deal of harm by provoking a negative reaction from the community
and stigmatizing the disabled. Ibid. Likewise, the program review board
hearing was declared invalid because the County selectively applied it only
to projects that provoked community opposition. Ibid. Moreover, the
review boards included neighborhood representatives, but no one from the
group home community. Id. at 1297. Thus, the County had given undue
weight to community concerns and prejudices. Id. at 1298. The court
dismissed the County's argument that it was i·equired to hold public
meetings by state law. Id. at 1299. ~'To the extent that the state Open C
Meetings Act 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full
purposes.and objectives' of the FHAA, it may not be enforced." Ibid.
Finally, the exclusion from group homes of persons incapable of exiting a
building during ail emergency was declared invalid because it irrationally
excluded disabled persons from group homes. Id. at 1300. Fire code
regulations already addressed the emergency needs of disabled persons to
such an extent that the exclusion lacked any rational basis. Ibid.
In Support Ministries for Persons with AIDS, Inc. v. Village of Waterford,
808 F. Supp. 120, 122 (N.D.N.Y. 1992), plaintiff alleged discrimination
arising from a village's rejection of a residence for HIV-infected homeless
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 70 of 227
persons. The village had drafted Local Law No. 2 of 1990~ which amended
the zoning ordinance's definition of the term "boarding house" to exclude
plaintiff's facility. Id. at 125. The ordinance was passed quickly during the
period plaintiff was completing purchase of the property, and there was no
other indication that amending this definition was otherwise needed. Ibid.
Comments_of Village board'members revealed discriminatory animus. See
id. at 123-28. The court found that plaintiffs established both
discriminatory intent and disparate impact, stating, "[i]t is crystal clear that
Local Law No. 2 of 1990 was enacted by the board members to prevent
Support Ministrie~ from establishing its adult home for homeless
[individuals with AIDS] in Waterford." Id. at 133. The court held, "the
HIV-positive status of the futui:e residents of the Sixth Street house was at
least one .factor, and probably the primary factor, for the enactment and
application of the new zoning law." Id. at 134. Furthermore, the court
explained, "[d]efendants' actions were blatantly based on the community's
unfounded fear of AIDS, their misperceptions of AIDS, and their prejudices
against [persons with AIDS], and not on a legitimate zoning interest." Id.
· at 136. When defendants asserted that the facility would result in a
potential risk of infection of the village residents, the court stated,
· "[ d]efendants' argument merely repeats the uneducated, discriminatory
beliefs that brought this case to the court. Their argument is totally
unsupported by the medical evidence." Id. at 137. The court enjoined the
village from interfering with the facility, thereby effectively enjoining
enforcement of the ordinance. Id. at 139.
In Tsombanidis v. City of West Haven, 129 F. Supp. 2d 136, 139:-40, 147
(D. Conn. 2001 ), the owner and residents of an Oxford House ( a provider of
housing for persons-in recovery from alcohol or substance abuse) brought
·_ suit against a city and its fire district, alleging violations of the FHA and
ADA. Prompted by neighbors' complaints; the city inspected the property
and found various violations of the property maintenance code. Id. at 141.
Plaintiffs claimed this was· a departure from normal procedure. Id. at 152.
A group· of concerned neighbors also met with the mayor, circulated a
petition, and attended a city council meeting. Id. at 143-44. A fire inspector
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 71 of 227
was sent to the property and later issued an abatement notice to correct
violations. Id. at 145.
As to discriminatory intent, the court stated, "even where individual
members of government are found not to be biased themselves, liability
may still be imposed where discriminatory governmental actions are in
response to significant community bias." Id. at 152. The court quoted
Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F. 3d 37, 49 (2d Cir.
1997): "a decision made in the context of strong, discriminatory opposition
becomes tainted with discriminatory intent even if the decisionmakers
personally have no strong views on the matter." Tsombanidis, 129 F. Supp.
at 152. Upon the city's declaration that "representative government
requires that even arguably intolerant citizens have the right to have their
complaints investigated," the court agreed but explained that the city's
. actions in response to these complaints must be examined and thus cannot
be decided by a summary judgment motion. Id. at 153. As to the fire
district, there was no evidence that community opposition played any role
in its enforcement efforts, or even that the fire officials were aware of such
opposition. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the fire
district regarding intentionar discrimination. Id. at 154-55.
The Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part in
Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Department, 352 F. 3d 565, 581-82 (2d Cir.
2003). As to discriminatory intent, the court reiterated that plaintiffs
offered valid evidence that the city rarely took enforcement action against
boarding houses in residential neighborhoods, the city ignored Oxford
Houses' explanatory letters, and one of the property maintenance code
officials was dissatisfied with Oxford House. Id. at 580. Evidence
supported the trial court's finding that the history of neighborhood
hostility and pressure on city officials motivated the city in initiating and
continuing its enforcement efforts. Ibid.
In Steinhauser v. City of St. Paul, 595 F. Supp. 2d 987, 991-92, 999, 1006
(D . Minn. 2008), residential property owners alleged illegal enforcement of
the city's property maintenance standards against properties leased to low-
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 72 of 227
income residents. The court rejected a FHA discriminatory treatment
claim. The city enforced its housing code by conducting proactive sweeps
requested by city officials and responding to citizen complaints, but due to
limited resources, housing inspectors had discretion in their application of
the rules. Id. at 993. Plaintiffs alleged that neighboring properties also had
code violations but did not receive enforcement orders. Id. at 995. A
legislative aide received a call from a resident who was concerned that her
neighbors were submitting complaints about her due to her race. · Id. at
1000. The court found that the resident was concerned about the
neighbors, and not about the city targeting her, and that the city took her
concerns seriously and sought to resolve the matter. Ibid. Although there
was testimony of the neighbors making false allegations to the police, the
court held, "discriminatory animus on the part of the neighbors is not
evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of [the city]." Id. at 1004.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. Gallagher v.
Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010).
The comments of local officials also led to adverse results in LeBlanc-
Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F:3d 412,419 (2d Cir. 1995). · There, the federal
government and private plaintiffs brought two suits against a village and
its officers, alleging the village had been incorporated to exclude the
Orthodox Jewish community through zoning restrictions on places of
worship .. The jury in the private plaintiffs' suit found the village had
violated the FHA, but two days later, the district court found against the
federal government. Id. at 422. The court then corrected what it
considered two inconsistent judgments by concluding that the village was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 423. On appeal, the Second
Circuit held the village was liable. Id. at 435. First, the court noted "the
plethora of statements in the record attributed to ... leaders who became
Village officials, expressing anti-Orthodox Jewish sentiments." Id. at 430.
One official said, "the only reason we formed this village is to keep those
Jews from Williamsburg out of here." Ibid. The mayor called the Orthodox
Jewsllforeigners and interlopers," "ignorant and uneducated," and "an
insul~ to the people who lived there previously." Id. at 420. Another
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 73 of 227
official said that the village did not have to pursue particular proceedings
with respect to a home synagogue because "there are other ways we can
harass them." Ibid. Second, the events cited by the officials as evidencing a
need to incorporate as a village, along with the subsequent actions,
demonstrated an animosity toward Orthodox Jews. Id. at 431. The pre-
incorporation zoning was seen as leading to the "grim picture of a Hasid1c
belt." Ibid. The officials cited traffic and noise problems but only paid
attention to those created by the Orthodox Jews. Ibid. The officials . ·
opposed slight variances for a synagogue's construction but unanimously
allowed a Catholic mausoleum variance. Ibid.
In Yeshiva Chafetz Chaim Radin, Inc. v. Village of New Hempstead, 98 F.
Supp. 2d 347,349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), a non-profit Orthodox Jewish
organization and two ultra-Orthodox Jewish residents brought suit against
the village and its officials, alleging religious discrimination in zoning
enforcement. Village zoning laws includ~d a prohibition of multi-family
housing and a requirement of a special permit to have two kitchens in one .
house, which plaintiffs claimed was discriminatory. Id. at 351. Plaintiffs
submitted testimony that the mayor m_ade discriminatory comments about
the history of intentional discrimination .by the village. Id. at 355. The
court denied defendants' summary judgment motion, finding that
plaintiffs had raised a triable issue of fact as to discriminatory intent. Id. at
349.
In United States v. City of Parma, 661 F.2d 562, 564-65 (6th Cir. 1981),
the U.S. sought to enjoin the city from continuing its actions which had the
purpose and effect of maintaining racial segregation. The city refused to
enact a fair housing resolution welcoming "all persons of goodwill,"
passed four land use ordinances imposing height, parking and voter
approval limitations on housing developments, did not apply for federal
funds, and rejected proposal$ for public or low-income housing. Id. at 566-
67. The district court held that some of the city's actions "were motivated
by a racially discriminatory and exclusionary intent" in order to "maintain
the segregated 'character' of the City," and the Sixth Circuit affirmed in
rpart. Id. at 568,579. There was evidence of elected officials' public
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 74 of 227
statements that were either overtly racist or found to have racist meanings,
open hostility of both the residents and officials regarding low-income
housing, and departures from normal practices by city employees in
handling a subsidized housing project proposal, including unusually strict
adherence to the planning and zoning code, and not accommodating the
developer through informal negotiations. Id. at 566,568,575. There was
also "ample testimony that Parma already had a reputation among black
residents of the Cleveland area of hostility to racial minorities." Id. at 57 4.
In Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 843 F. Supp. 1556, 1572 (E.D. Mo.
1994), recovering alcohol and drug users alleged FHA violations arising
from code enforcement. The district court found the city liable based on
discriminatory intent, and permanently enjoined the city from prohibiting
a recove1y facility housing more than eight people. Id. at 1584. Die city
received a complaint about the facility,· and thus sent its city inspector to
investigate, which led to subsequent inspections and citations, including
one for a non-existent violation. Id. at 1565-66, 1576. According to a city
employee, "the neighbors did not have complaints about specific problems,
but 'concern for the idea that a drug rehab house was in their
neighborhood."' Id. at 1566. The decision to cite the facility for a violation
of the zoning code was made by the city's zoning administrator, who
testified in a deposition that he "'wouldn't want them living next door."'
Id. at 1566-67. The court explained, "[i]ntentional discrimination can
include actions motivated by stereotypes, unfounded fears,
misperceptions, and 'archaic attitudes', as well as simple prejudice about
people with disabilities." Id. at 1575-76. Intentional discrimination does
riot require proof of a malicious desire to discriminate, but rather "[i]t is -
enough that the actions were motivated by or based on consideration of the
protected status itself." Id. at 1576.
"The evidence here showed that city officials responded to the
presence of the Oxford Houses based on stereotypical fears of
recovering addicts and alcoholics, and carried out their
enforcement efforts in response to neighborhood and
community fears and concerns about "some sort of drug rehab"
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 75 of 227
house being in the two neighborhoods. In short, the evidence
. clearly showed that defendant's actions were motivated by
consideration of plaintiffs' handicapped status."
Id. at 1576.
The court explained that the city made no attempt to assuage the
fears of its residents by explaining the benefits of the Oxford House
program or the relevant non-discrimination laws: "[A] decisionmaker has
a duty not to allow illegal prejudices of the majority to influence the
decision making process." Id. at 1576. Also, the city had not prosecuted
-various religious orders that violated the same ordinance. Id. at 1578. The
city asserted that no one ever complained about the religious orders, but
the court explained that this "supports_ the argument that defendant
enforced the ordinance only against politically unpopular groups like the
handicapped plaintiffs here." Id. at 1578 & n.17.
The Eighth Circuit reversed in Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 77 F.
3d 249, 250-51 (8th Cir. 1996), holding the city acted lawfully. The court
explained, "[r]ather than discriminating against Oxford House residents,
the City's zoning code favors them on its face. The zoning code allows
only three unrelated, nonhandicapped people to reside together in a single
family zone, but allows group homes to have up to eight handicapped·
residents." Id. at 251 ~52. Despite evidence that the eight-person limit
would destroy the financial viability of many Oxfo_rd Houses, the court
concluded that the rule was rational. Id. at 252. The court observed that
"Oxford House did not show the City ignored zoning violations by
nonhandicapped people." Ibid. The city never received complaints about
the other groups Oxford House alleged were violating the zoning code.
Ibid. "[W]e believe the City's enforcement actions were lawful regardless
of whether some City officials harbor prejudice or unfounded fears about
recovering addicts." Ibid. These "isolated comments" do not reveal a
discriminatory application of the zoning code, especially when the Oxford
Houses were "plainly in violation of a valid zoning rule and City officials
have a duty to ensure compliance." Ibid. The City's inspectors did not
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 76 of 227
hold policymaking positions, and thus their commentary and actions did
·not impute to the city as evidence of discriminatory intent. Ibid.
b. Practical Tips for Minimizing Exposure Based on
Alleged Discriminatory Intent
· ■ Local officials should refrain from affirming or agreeing with
discriminatory. comments made by members of the public.
Discriminatory comments from the public, which are shown to
influence a local agency's decision adverse to a protected group, could
form the basis for a successful challenge in court. Comments by members
of the public alone, without agreement of the governing body, are unlikely
to form the basis of a successful anti-discrimination lawsuit. Nevertheless,
discriminatory comments on the record make for bad atmospherics and
could taint an otherwise strong defense.
■ Local officials should remind members of the public who make
discriminatory comments that it is not permissible for government
to discriminate based on a person's disabled or otherwise
protected status.
This might ~ot always be possible given that multiplE'. concerns are
often in play. If loq1l officials feel they are not in a position to issue
admonitions in an emotionally charged environment, they should at the
very least listen respectfully to everyone without expressly agreeing with
anyone.
In a heated setting, it might be advisable for the Mayor or Chair to
read a prepared statement at_ the outset of a public hearing; and before
reconvening after each break, remind everyone of the governing law, and
that disrespectful comments are inappropriate. This may help avoid one or
more particular speakers feeling target~d if the Mayor or Chair reads a
stat_ement immediately aft€r a speaker's comments.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 77 of 227
■ Local officials should refrain from making comments that could be
perceived as discriminatory by others.
Discriminatory comments by local officials, depending on their
frequency and severity, may lead to liability in an anti-discrimination
lawsuit.
On some occasions, attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice
attend City Council ot Planning Commission meetings unbeknownst to .
anyone else present, and City officials do not learn of this until much later.
Comments by local officials during those meetings could trigger further
investigation by the Department of Justice culminating in a lawsuit
brought by the United States.
■ Local officials should state the reasons for their decision in non-
discriminatory terms.
Language matters. Depending upon context, terms such as "those
people" or "you people" or "them" do not read well in a transcript. Avoid
demeaning terms such as "addicts". or II drunks" and the like. Courts
develop a feel for the backstory based on the terms used. The more neutral
and professional the language and tone, the better. Where the evidence is
such that the case is a close call, courts might be willing to give the benefit
of the doubt to the government when the record reflects good behavior.
■ Local officials and government staff members should not align
themselves with a group, no matter how well-intentioned that
group may be, that opposes housing for disabled persons.
Officials and staff should not attend private meetings of an
opposition group.
If officials and staff conduct workshops or seminars in an effort to
resolve community differences, they should invite people from all groups
to participate, instead of inviting only some of the interested parties.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 78 of 227
■ If any interested party circulates inaccurate information that
appears to be fueling public opposition-to a protected group,
particularly where the inaccurate information involves the action
or inaction of local officials and staff members, the local agency
should attempt immediately to provide accurate information.
■ If a particular project, or the implementation of a regulation,
requires input or action from multiple departments within the
local agency, ensure that all departments communicate with each
other so that none takes action inconsistent with the others.
■ Conform as much as possible to past practice. For example, if
applications for use permits in a particular zone usually involve
Planning Commission or City Council hearings over a period of a
few hours on a single date, but an application involving a
protected group involves hearings over multiple days where the
same residents opposing a project speak more than once, or where
the comments of a large number of residents opposing the project
are repetitive, this could be considered evidence of discriminatory
intent. Also, if the protected group is required to obtain a
discretionary approval, ensure that the application process for that
approval is not significantly more onerous than the process for
any discretionary approval to which other groups may be eligible
for the same purpose.
c. · Articulating a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason
for the regulation.
Courts view subjective explanations of regulations with skepticism. ·
Objective evidence of asserted reasons leads to better results for the
defendant agency. "In examining the defendant's reason, we view
skeptically subjective rationales concerning why he denied housing to
members of protected groups. Our reasoning, in part, is that 'clever men .
may easily conceal their motivations,' [citation].· There is less reason to be
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 79 of 227
wary of subjective explanations, though, where a defendant provides
objective evidence indicating that truth lies behind his assertions of
nondiscriminatory conduct." Soules v. U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev.,
967 F.2d 817, 822 (2d Cir. 1992).
Concern for the residential character of the neighborhood is a
legitimate and nondiscriminatory goal. Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d
300,306 (9th Cir. 1997). "Though [Plaintiff] made an effort to ensure that
[the use] would aesthetically blend in with its surrounding neighborhood,
[the use] nevertheless required a [use permit] because certain aspects of the
[the use] did not meet all of the requirements of the residential zones in
which it would have been located." Budnick, 518 F.3d at 1116. See also
Gamble, 104 F.3d at 305 ("[W]e ... conclude the reason the City advances for
its decision, concern for the character of the neighborhood, is legitimate
and nondiscriminatory."). Nonetheless, if a municipality has shown little
regard for the character of the neighborhood by previously allowing other
uses inconsistent with that asserted character, the court most likely will
reject preservation of neighborhood character as a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason.
d. Showing the asserted reason for the regulation is a
---pretext for discrimination. --------
In direct evidence cases, courts decide the issue of pretext by
examining the same factors that inform whether plaintiff has established at
the outset a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. In several of the
cases discussed above, it was the gravity of plaintiff's evidence, or lack
thereof, regarding legislative history, sequence of events, or departure from
customary practice, that was outcome determinative on the issue of pretext.
In Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, 248 F.3d 1267, 1269 (10th
Cir. 2001), a youth group homes operator brought suit against the city,
alleging in relevant part that the denial of a special use permit (SUP) was a
violation of the FHA. The district court ruled for Olathe on this claim. Id.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 80 of 227
at 1269-70. On appeat Keys argued that Olathe denied the SUP because of
the children' s·disabilities, but Olathe responded that "it denied the permit
because the troubled juveniles would pose a legitimate· threat to
neighborhood safety." Id. at 1273. The Tenth Circuit called this a
legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for the decision. Ibid .. Thus, "the sole ·
issue for trial focused on whether Olathe' s safety concerns were mere
pretext for handicap discrimination." Ibid. The district court found this
reason was not mere pretext, and the appellate court stated this inquiry
was a factual issue. Id. at 1273-74. The home was for youths ages 12 to 17 ·
who were abused, neglected, or abandoned, and whose scores were high
on a rating scale of juvenile behavioral problems, meaning they were
typically antisocial, aggressive, and engaged in violent crimes. Id. at 127 4.
· Keys operated another such home that had a break-out in the past, and the
juveniles went on a crime spree. Ibid. Although Keys showed that
additional nighttime staff was hired after the break-out, which had .
prevented further break-outs, and the majority of police calls did not affect
the neighbors, the court stated, "Olathe' s fears are not groundless .... It is
not unreasonable to think that [these juveniles] are capable of causing
similar problems in the future." Id . at. 1274-75. It then affirmed the district
court's holding that this reason was not mere pretext. Id. at 1275.
IV. Conclusion
A facially neutral zoning law will not survive a legal challenge on the
sole basis that it treats everyone the same on its face. Courts routinely look
beneath the surface in an attempt to uncover any discriminatory intent. A
court will examine any _one or more of the rrniltiple factors, discussed
above, that inform discriminatory purpose. Government agencies should
take care to ask themselves whether a specific action, no matter how well-
intentioned, could be perceived as evidence of discrimination. This is often
a difficult task. The case law discussed in this paper ptovides at least some
guidance as to when govenmlent agencies have crossed the sometimes
nebulous boundary between valid action and discrimination.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 81 of 227
This page intentionally left blank.
League ·of California Cities® 2016 Spring Conference
Marriott, Newport Beach
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 82 of 227
ATTACHMENT 3
Informational Staff Report on Sober Living Homes dated Feb. 19, 2019
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 83 of 227
In California, sober living homes are not required to obtain a license and are not limited to six or
fewer residents. Sober living homes are not considered a business by the State of California
because they provide a substance-free, family-like living environment for adults who are
recovering from drug and alcohol addictions and provide no service. If there is no treatment
provided to residents, no license is required. On the other hand, residential facilities that provide
treatment (medical or otherwise) and detoxification services are licensed by the state. The
limitation of six or fewer residents per single-family home only applies to those facilities requiring
licensing.
Proponents of locating sober living homes in residential neighborhoods contend that
reintegrating treatment patients into mainstream society through a typical family living situation
enhances recovery efforts. The rationale is that locating sober living homes in attractive settings
with attractive amenities significantly enhances a patient's chances of a successful recovery.
Proponents also cite legislative intent that they believe mandates that "each county and city shall
permit and encourage the development of sufficient numbers and types of alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facilities" (See Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 11834.20)
Critics of placing sober living homes in residential neighborhoods most often cite personal
experiences of excessive and late-night noise, vulgar language, excessive cigarette smoking,
invasion of privacy and lewd conduct, increased litter, increased vandalism and problematic
traffic and parking issues. Many cities already have regulations that will address all the ancillary
issues/impacts noted above; this indicates that the transitory nature of home occupants and.the
fact that they are recovering substance abuse addicts may be the larger concern . But it is more
difficult to regulate impacts associated with recovering substance abuse addicts and is likely the
reason most regulatory restrictions are not withstanding legal challenges.
Efforts to Regulate
In the past few years, there has been enhanced awareness of sober living homes in Carlsbad by
existing residents and concerns expressed that there is an increasing number of group homes for
recovering substance abuse addicts not only .in Carlsbad but throughout cities in California as well
as across the United States. These concerns have been shared with legislators and other local
elected officials. Due to these resident concerns, there have been numerous state and local
attempts to approve new regulatory restrictions to govern these sober living homes and reduce
their impacts on residential neighborhoods. Proposed local regulations have included limiting the
total number of sober living homes, limiting the distance between sober living homes, requiring
more parking or placing other restrictions on the operations of these homes.
To date, nearly all of these new regulations have been met with legal challenges on the basis of
discrimination against those who are disabled. For example, the cities of Newport Beach and
Costa Mesa have approved ordinances to place restrictions on the location and/or number of
sober living homes permitted within their cities. These ordinances have faced or are facing major
legal challenges from disability advocacy groups and others in support of the sober living homes.
A proposed regulatory framework for the City of Los Angeles failed to become law. Other
California local governments have recently explored, advanced or enacted regulation of sober
living homes including San Clemente (2016), Laguna Niguel (2016), San Juan Capistrano (2016),
February 19, 2019 Item #3 Page 2 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 85 of 227
transient nature of the residents, all single-family homes would be required to comply with the
same regulations. Among other impacts, this requirement would prevent short-term vacation
rentals inside or outside the coastal zone and all other rental leases for less than one year. This
regulation would also be difficult to enforce and labor intensive because it would require
government oversight of all rentals of residential property.
Below are some additional statements on prohibited land use policies from a Joint Statement of
the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Group
Homes, local land Use, and the Fair Housing Act). These policy statements reflect the complexity
of developing regulations specificaily for sober living homes which would not be considered
discriminatory in nature ..
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to:
• Apply land use policies or actions that treat groups of persons with disabilities less
favorably than groups of non-disabled persons. An example would be an ordinance
prohibiting housing for persons with disabilities or a specific disability, such as mental
illness or drug addiction, from locating in a particular area, while allowing other groups of
unrelated individuals to live together in that area.
• Take action against, or deny a permit for, a home because of the disability of individuals
who live or would live there. An example would be the denial of a building permit for a
home because it was intended to provide housing for persons in recovery for alcohol or
drug addiction.
It is important to note again that the Act does not protect personswho currently use illegal drugs,
persons who have been convicted of the manufacture or sale of illegal drugs or persons with or
without disabilities who present a direct threat to the persons or property of others. Sober living
homes are intended only for those persons in recovery from substance abuse addiction.
California Laws ~ Sober Living Homes
Sober living homes may locate in residential zones in California based on the 1980 California
Supreme Court decision, City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, where the court ruled based on
privacy rights, that definitions of "family" for purposes of zoning cannot distinguish between
related and unrelated individuals. This means that local governments cannot limit the number
of unrelated adults that may reside together functioning as a family unit if they do not limit the
number of related persons. Sober living homes that function as a family and do not provide
medical care, treatment, individual or group counseling, case management, medication
management or treatment planning and that do not supervise daily activities are not subject to
any state or local licensure requirements; therefore, no permits or licenses can be required.
State law focuses primarily on licensing requirements of residential facilities that provide
treatment to six or more residents. Non-licensed sober living homes where residents are simply
living as a family are protected by both federal law, such as the Fair Housing Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law, such as the Fair Employment and Housing Act,
which prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities. A disability is defined to include
February 19, 2019 Item #3 Page 4 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 87 of 227
address regulatory requirements for sober living homes, but none have been successful
to date, primarily due to opposition from operators of sober living homes and advocates
for the disabled. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a summary of legislative efforts to date.
3. Require all residential rentals, short-term and long-term, to obtain a business license,.
include good-neighbor rules in their leases and be subject to annual inspections to ensure
the homes meet basic housing quality standarqs. This program would be very costly and
labor intensive, but there are models in other cities (such as the City of Los Angeles) of
rental licensing/registration and inspection that could be used to develop a program in
Carlsbad. It is very important to note that this program would need to apply to ~rentals,
not only sober living homes, to avoid claims of discrimination or fair housing violations.
4. Complete a more extensive review of the new ordinance adopted by the City of Costa
Mesa to regulate group and sober living homes and continue to monitor the legal
challenges. Return to Council at a later date with a similar ordinance for consideration if
it is ultimately upheld in whole or parts by the courts. Attached as Attachment 2 is a
summary of the Costa Mesa information guide for its residents and new ordinance
requirements. To date, the city1s requirement for separation between homes of 650 feet
has been upheld as nondiscriminatory and staff could study this further to determine if it
would have applicability in Carlsbad; other legal determinations will be monitored and
discussed at a later date in more detail as legal challenges are resolved through the courts.
5. Residents in the Olde Carlsbad neighborhood have asked for the City Council to appoint
an Ad Hoc Citizen Advisory Committee to work with the city on developing regulations for
Sober Living Homes. If the City Councii"wishestodo so, it is recommended that the council
provide specific instructions on the work program for this committee and provide legal
counsel for this effort. This is a very legally challenging issue that requires significant
expertise in state and federal laws related to fair housing and anti-discrimination to
develop legally defensible regulations.
This report is provided for informational purposes only to allow for public discussion of concerns
by Carlsbad residents and potential actions to address those concerns as related to sober living
homes. Attached as Exhibits 1-3 are additional resource materials that helped to inform this
report to City Council.
Fiscal Analysis
At this time there is no fiscal impact associated with the presentation of this informational report
on sober living homes.
Next Steps
There are no next steps, unless the City Council provides additional direction following their
discussion on this informational report.
February 19, 2019 Item #3 Page 8 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 91 of 227
Exhibit 1
Appendix: Recent proposed legislation
The following table includes all bills directly or indirectly affecting sober living homes that have been
introduced since the 1998-99 legislative session.
Year Status Bill, Description
.Sponsor
1993 Vetoed by Governor. S8.1540 Required state licensure of adult recovery maintenance
(Kamette) facilities or "sober living homes" and required the
Department of Social Services to develop plans regarding
community care facilities.
1999 Vetoed by Governor. SB986 Required the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
(Karnette) to license and regulate adult recovery maintenance
facilities and directed department to establish fees to
regulate such facilities. ·
2000 Died in Assembly SB 987 Required the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Health Committee. (Kamette) to administer the licensure and regulation of adult
recovery maintenance facilities.
2001 Never heard in 5B239 Required court, probation department, Department of
committee. (Morrow} Corrections, or California Youth Authority to refer persons
to a sober living facility only if certified.
2001 Never heard in. SB 1089 Required the Department of Social Services to develop and
committee. (Karnette) submit to the Legislature plans regarding a statewide
database .of alcohol and drug abuse treatment and
recovery facilities and a plan for regulating unlicensed
residential programs.
2002 Died in Senate AB 2317 Required the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to
Appropriations. (Chu) develop and adopt emergency regulations governing the
licensing and operation of adult recovery maintenance
facilities on or before July 1, 2003.
2003 Never heard in S8340 Required the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to
committee. (Florez.) administer the licensure and regulation of adult recovery
maintenance facilities.
2005 Died in Senate AB36 Required the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to
Appropriations. (Strickland) license Adult Recovery Maintenance Facilities.
February 19, 2019 Item #3 Page 10 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 93 of 227
Year Status Bill,· Description
Sponsor
2009 Gut and amended SB 589 Authorized a county or city to prohibit a person released
to address a (Hollingsworth) on parole, after having serve-0 a term of imprisonment in
different subject. state prison for any offense for which registration as a sex
offender is required, from residing during the period of
parole, in any single family dwelling with any other person
also on parole after having served a term of imprisonment
in state prison for any offense for which registration as a
sex offender is required, unless legally related by blood,
marriage or adoption.
2010 Died in Senate AB 2221 Permitted 24-hour residential treatment facilities
Appropriations. (Beall) that provide services ta adults recovering from
alcohol and drug abuse that are licensed by the
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to
provide medical services and the facility would not
require a health facflity lic-:nse.
2012 Died in Assembly AB40 Required an alcoholism or dmg abuse program
Appropriations. jMansoor) licensee to report specified events or incidents,
including the death of a resident, within one
working day of the event or incident.
2012 Nev1=r heard in AB 1983 Defined integral alcohol and drug abuse treatment
committee, (Mansoor} facilities for purposes of licensure by the Department of
Alcohol and Drug Programs and excluded integral
facilities from being residential use of property.
2014 Died in Assembly. AB 2335 Exempted a sober living home or supportive housing
(Manso or) from licensure as an alcohol and drug treatment
program.
2014 Died in Senate. AB 2491 Required the Department of Health care Services to
(Nestande) license and regulate adult recovery maintenance
facilities. Exempted sober living homes fromlicensure.
2016 Died in Assembly AB 838 (Brough Required any recovery houses operated by licensed
Health Committee. and Harper) community care facility to be deemed to be facilities
that provide treatment or services under the license of
the community care facility.
2016 Inactive bill. AB 1283 (Bates AUmved a city, county, or both to adopt healt11 and
and Brough) safety standards and enforcement mechanisms for
structured sober living homes.
February 19, 2019 Item #3 Page 12 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 95 of 227
• Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in land use and zoning policies and
procedures where such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons or groups
of persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.
• The Fair Housing Act requires jurisdictions to offer reasonable accommodation to meet
the needs of disabled persons.
3) What constitutes a reasonable accommodation is a case~by-case determination.
Not all requested modifications of rules or policies are reasonable. If a requested
modification imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on a local
government, or if a modification creates a fundamental alteration in a local
government's land use and zoning scheme, it is not a "reasonable" accommodation.
The Fair Housing Act does not protect persons who currently use illegal drugs, persons
who have been convicted of the manufacture or sale of illegal drugs, or persons with or
without disabilities who present a direct threat to the persons or property of others.
HUD and the Department of Justice encourage parties to group home disputes to
explore all reasonable dispute resolution procedures, like mediation, as alternatives to
litigation.
Adapted from the Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (August 18, 1999)
4) Definitions
Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment facility-An adult alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facility that is licensed pursuant to Section 11834.01 of the
California Health & Safety Code. Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment
Facilities are a subset of Residential Care Facilities.
Conditional use permit (CUP) -A discretionary approval usually granted by the planning
commission which allows a use or activity not allowed as a matter of right, based on
specified findings.
Group home -A facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for
persons who are considered handicaeped under state or federal law.
Handicapped -As more specifically defined under the fair housing laws, a person who
has a physical or mental impairment that limits one (1) or more major life activities, a
person who is regarded as having that type of impairment, or a person who has a record
of that type of impairment, not including q.irrent, illegal use of a controlled substance.
Integral facilities -Any combination of two (2) or more group homes which may or may
not be located on the same or contiguous parcels of land, that are under the control and
management of the same owner, operator, management company or licensee or any
affiliate of any of them, and are integrated components of one (1) operation shall be
referred to as integral facilities and shall be considered one (1) facility for purposes of
applying federal, state and local laws to its operation. Examples of such integral facilities
include, but are not limited to, the provision of housing in one (1) facility and recovery
February 19, 2019 Item #3 Page 14 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 97 of 227
detoxification, group counseling sessions, individual counseling sessions, educational
sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning.
A Sober Living Home is a home used by people recovering from substance abuse, which
serves as an interim environment between rehab and their future lives. These homes
are not allowed to provide the same services as a DHCS licensed alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facility. Sober Living Homes are primarily meant to provide
housing for people who have just come out of rehab and need a place to live that is
structured and supportive for those in recovery.
6) How the City regulates sober living homes.
The City's regulations for group homes, including sober living homes, and state licensed
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities, are found in Chapters XV and
XVI ofTitle 13 (Zoning) and Article 23 ofTitle 9 (Licenses and Business Regulations) Click
Here of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. The general requirements are as follows:
Group homes, including sober living homes, with 6 or fewer residents, plus one house
manager are al.lowed to locate in all residential zones with a special use permit (SUP),
which requires:
February 19, 2019
■ A public hearing in front of the Development Services Director prior to
issuance
■ Notice to all residents and property owners within 500'
■ Written Rules and regulations
• Relapse policy
• Manager present 24-hours a day o Garage and driveway must remain
available for parking
■ Residents must park on site or within 400 feet
■ Compliance with all applicable provisions of the California Vehicle Code, such
as those related to parking, stopping and licensure
■ No care and supervision is allowed
■ Full compliance with building and zoning codes
■ If a resident is evicted, operators must notify the resident's emergency
contact and provide transportation to their permanent address
■ If the resident has no home to return to or otherwise refuses transportation
home, the operator must provide transportation to another facility if a bed is
available
•Sober living homes also require:
■ 650' separation from another sober living home or state licensed alcoholism
or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities
Item #3 Page 16 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 99 of 227
Residential Care Facilities_ serving six or fewer persons are permitted in multifamily zones
pursuant to state law. Group homes serving six or fewer residents require a SUP (CMMC 13-
311). Residential Care Facilities and Group Homes serving seven or more persons require a CUP.
9) Reasonable Accommodation.
Pursuantto Federal regulations, the city is required to grant disabled individuals reasonable
accommodation from zoning restrictions when necessary to allow equal use or enjoyment of a
dwelling. An accommodation is reasonable if it does not cause undue hardship, fiscal, or
administrative burdens on the municipality, or does not undermine the basic purpose a zoning
ordina_nce seeks to achieve. A three-part test is applied to determining whether a reasonable
accommodation is necessary:
(1) the accommodation must be reasonable and
(2) necessary, and must,
(3) allow a substance abuser equal opportunity to use and enjoy a particular dwelling.
The city must make exceptions in its zoning rules to afford people with disabilities the same
access to housing as those·who are without disabilities. However, fundamental or substantial
modifications from ·municipal or zoning codes are not required.
10} When a state license is required.
The DHCS licenses facilities providing 24-hour residential nonmedical services to eligible adults
who are recovering from alcohol or other drug misuse or abuse. Facilities are required to be
licensed by the OHCS when they offer at least one of the following services:
0 Detoxification
0 lndividual or group sessions
0 Education
0 Recovery or treatment planning
0Individualized services (e.g., vocational and employment, new skills training, social and
recreational activities, peer support)
Sober Living Homes that provide group living arrangements for people who have graduated
from drug and/or alcohol addiction programs, but do not provide care or supervision to those
individuals, are not required to be licensed.
11) Overconcentration standards/separation requirements between Residential Care
Facilities.
State law does not impose any separation requirements between DHCS licensed facilities serving
those in recovery from drug and/or alcohol addiction. However, the City has adopted a
separation requirement of 650 feet between group homes and licensed facilities serving those in
recovery. This standard only applies to those facilities subject the City's permitting requirements
(those facilities required to obtain a SUP or CUP).
February 19, 2019 Item #3 Page 18 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 101 of 227
12) Limitations on the number of Group Homes that can locate in a certain area.
The Department of Justice and HUD take the position, and most courts that have addressed the
issue agree, that density restrictions are generally inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act. We
also believe, however; that if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes,
that could create an institutional setting. Such a setting would be inconsistent with the objective
of integrating persons with disabilities into the community. This objective does not, however,
justify separations which have the effect offoreclosing group homes from locating in entire
neighborhoods.
The City has established a separation standard of 650 feet between group homes and
Residential Care Facilities serving those in recovery. This separation standard only applies to
those facilities subject to the City's permitting requirements. The intent is to allow about one
such facility per block. The City adopted this standard to prevent neighborhoods from becoming
institutionalized with multiple group homes. The intent of state law in allowing these facilities in
residentfal neighborhoods is to allow those in recovery to live in a residential setting.
13) Group homes are not considered a business operation.
State law provides that cities must treat licensed facilities serving six or fewer residents as a
single-family residential use. Federal and state fair housing laws protect people with disabilities
from ho~sing discrimination. Recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are disabled for purposes of
anti-discrimination laws. When people in recovery live together in a sober living home, the city
cannot discriminate on the basis of the disability, which means an ordinance cannot treat sober
living homes differently than other similar uses in residential zones.
14) The City allows neighbors to. provide input when the City is making a decision about
granting a permit to a Group Home or licensed care facility to locate in a residential
neighborhood.
The City modified its regulations to require a public hearing prior to approving a SUP. SUPs allow
sober living homes serving six or fewer resident$ to operate in a residential zone. The City's
regulations stipulate that an SUP can only be denied if it fails to comply with the zoning c.ode.
The purpose of the hearing is to allow neighbors to provide evidence as to the facility's
compliance with the zoning code. Decisions regarding SUPs may be appealed to the Planning
Commission.
Facilities serving more than seven residents require approval of a CUP. The Planning
Commission must hold a public hearing prior to taking action on a CUP. The Commission may
impose conditions of approval to ensure the use is compatible with the neighborhood. The
decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
The City provides notices of these public hearings to all owners and occupants of property
within 500 feet of the proposed group home. Notice is also published in the Daily Pilot at least
ten days prior to the hearing, and notices are posted on the subject property. The City also
maintains an email interest list and provides informal notice when hearings involving group
homes are scheduled; To sign up for this list, Click here and enter in subject line: Interest list
February 19, 2019 Item #3 Page 19 of 21 ' May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 102 of 227
15) Factors the City may consider when evaluating an application for a group home or licensed
care facility
In the same way a local government would break the law if it rejected low-income housing in a
community because of neighbors' fears that such housing would be occupied by racial
minorities, a local government can violate the Fair Housing Act if it blocks a group home or
denies a requested reasonable accommodation in response to neighbors' stereotypical fears or
prejudices about persons with disabilities. This is so even if the individual government decision-
makers are not themselves personally prejudiced against persons with disabilities. If the
evidence shows that the decision-makers were responding to the wishes of their constituents,
and that the constituents were motivated in substantial part by discriminatory concerns, that
could be enough to prove a violation. Of course, the City Council and Planning Commission are
not bound by everything that is said by every person who speaks out at a public hearing. It is the
record as a whole that will be determinative. If the record shows that there were valid reasons
for denying an application that were not related to the disability of the prospective residents,
the courts will give little weight to isolated discriminatory statements. If, however, the
purportedly legitimate reasons advanced to support the action are not objectively valid, the
courts are likely to treat them as pretextual, and to find that there has been discrimination. The
decision makers must base decisions on specific evidence regarding the application under
consideration. If the facility is creating specific problems that interfere with the ability of
surrounding residents to enjoy their property, those issues may properly influence the decision .
. However, City officials cannot base decisions to approve or deny these applications based on
stereotypical fears or general concerns about possible impacts.
16) Types of conditions the City may impose when approving a group home or residential care
facility ..
When approving a CUP, the City may impose conditions necessary to ensure compliance with its
regulations, and to address operational considerations that may be creating issues in the area.
However, conditions may not discriminate against the residents of the home by denying them
privileges enjoyed by other residents in the neighborhood. Since the City does not limit the
number of cars that may be kept at any residence, for instance, the City may not impose
conditions limiting the number of vehicles that can be kept at a group home.
17) Protections for individuals who may be evicted from a group home
The City requires operators to notify the resident's emergency contact at least 48 before
evicting a resident. The operator is also obligated to provide transportation back to the
resident's permanent address. Further, operators are required to contact OC links, the County
of Orange referral service, and the City's Network for Homeless Solutions, to determine if
services are available for the resident. If the resident refuses transportation back to their
permanent address, and there is a bed available in another facility, the operator is required to
provide transportation to· that facility.
February 19, 20~9 Item #3 Page 20 of 21 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 103 of 227
Sober Living Homes & Regulations
Report
Debbie Fountain
Community and Economic Development Director
Feb. 19,2019
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 105 of 227
City Council Request
September 11, 2018 City Council Motion:
"to place the discussion of sober living facility
regulations on a future agenda".
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 106 of 227
Sober living homes
• Group homes: typically 6 or fewer residents
-Addiction recovery
-Residences, not treatment facilities
• Limited licensing and zoning requirements
• Residents are considered disabled (addiction)
• Protected under federal and state law
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 107 of 227
Efforts to regulate
• The Fair Housing Act
-Prohibits discrimination against the disabled
• Agencies attempt to regulate
-Limit the#, distance & operational restrictions
• Met with legal challenges
-Bills: 25:3:0
• Costa Mesa
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 109 of 227
Options
• Certification of sober living homes
• Partner with legislators
• Require a business license
-Good neighbor rules & annual inspections
• Costa Mesa Ordinance
-Wait, see, follow?
• Ad Hoc Citizen Advisory Committee
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 111 of 227
Summary
• Sober living homes enjoy legal protection
• Resident concerns shared nationwide
• No license, no count
• Legal options
-Costly
-Likely to fail
• City Council direction
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 112 of 227
ATTACHMENT 5
Staff Report and City Council Resolution #2019-134 dated Jul. 23, 2019
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 119 of 227
Morgen Fry ·
Subject: . FW: Sober living home committee agenda item
. From: Rosemary Eshelman
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 6:54 AM
/UtV'~Agenda-.ftem #-I ,,.6
For the Information of the:
-OUNCIL ' I •• / oat@ ?A _Q_ ca __ ._
CM _ktoo V DCM {3} L
To: Matthew Hail <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Keith Blackburn
<Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Barbara Hamilton
<Barbara.Hamilton@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Kristen Rahmeyer
< >; Senator Bates< >
Cc: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Attorney <attornev@CarlsbadCA."gov:>; Neil Gallucci
<Neil.Gallucci@carlsbadca.gov>; Andrea Dykes <Andrea.Dykes@carlsbadca.gov>; Jason Haber
<Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Sober living home committee agenda item
Good afternoon all,
I kno"'." the sober living subcommittee is on the agenda this evenings agenda to speak about formulating a committee as
approved earlier this year. am very excited to see a committee come together of council and community stakeholders.
It will be great to look at state, local and federal regulatory legislation in relation to these homes in carlsbad and the
surrounding communities. I am not sure how y<;>u will organize the committee whether it will be application process or
appointment or both, but i am interested in continuing to be engaged in this committee for Carlsbad.
Unfortunately, fortunately i will not be in town as my son has been called up to major league baseball by the Orioles and
i will be in Arizona with him since they made it to the west coast. ·
' I will look at the results of the meeting and am always available by phone 760 845 0318 or email.
Thanks so much.
Rosemary
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy 58.
1
l
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 123 of 227
Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee on Sober Living Homes
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
5:30 -7:30 p.m.
Faraday Admin. Center
Meeting Notes
Presenters: David Graham, Chief Innovation Office(
Mike Peterson, Asst. Director
Kerry Jezisek, Sr. Program Manager
Keith Blackburn, City Council member
Time: 5:31 pm
ATTACHMENT 6
David presented /facilitated. Gave a brief presentation and explained the purpose of subcommittee. ·
Please fill out the sign in sheet to be notified when it goes to City Council. Staff will take written
comments.
Goals: provide context for discussion, receive public input and develop report to City Council.
Subcommittee: Developed through City Council minute motion in Feb. of 2019
Population serviced at risk youth, elderly, chronically m, and mentally disabled
Who regulates? Federal gov. and Fair Housing act and America w/Disabilities Act.
State of California control the care and different types of licenses.
Common group homes: independent living homes, supportive housing, rec.every homes/sober living.
Recovery Homes or Sober living -unlicensed by the state, substance addiction recovery, no treatment,
Protections
Common issLJes: Activity impacts, overcrowding, safety, traffic, concentration of too many in an area.
Residential facilities-licensed by the state, 24 hr. non-medical cif persons
Public comment with speaker slips:
Ernie T. of Carlsbad -He stated there is a group home for eating disorders near his residence and had
two concerns: 1. parking two facilities close together. Visitors coming. 6 people, i;lnd staff. Parking
allocations any restrictions? 2. Distance allowed between these facilities?
Tiffany-Firefighter retired. Referred to Sunrise living group home in Chula Vista, 17 bedrooms.
Company just taking their money. Lemon Grove has a group home of 26 bedrooms. Crowed living, trash, .
dirty. Asked the city to really investigate the companies that are coming here.
Martha -Carlsbad, a 30-yr. resident-confused by the format. Discouraged with format that it is not an ·
. Ad Hoc CC Subcommittee. It is not what the citizens asked for. Issue what is best for the community.
These group homes are not being supervised. Trouble kids. Cash cows'. facilities.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 125 of 227
Jeanna .Taylor -Carlsbad -concerns: quality, no supervision, compatibility of the neighborhood,
.intention of the owners (financial gain or care), and accumulative effect of what is going to happen.
Rosemary Eshelman -On 2/19 City Council asked for ad hoc committee. When has the Ad hoc
Committee niet and who is on the committee? A clarity of goals, timeline of this committee. What is the
fallout of these residents after they leave? Has any research been done? We want to be part of the
solution too.
Mark Gladden -owner and operating of two facilities. Advocate tci drug addicts. He has been helped by
such a_ facility.
Glen c-Carlsbad -owns properties on Jefferson. Neighbor's house sold, and it became a living facility
for 6 people. There are cigarette buds, trash, playing ping pong, loud noises, has had to call the police
several times. Concerned about who is living the house. Asked city to give notice to neighbors within
-500 ft. Who regulates the number of tenants? Does the city keep a record of how many times PD shows
up?
Robin -Carlsbad resident-stated that this is like a SB330 discussion. We cannot hold the city
responsible if the Federal gov. and insurance companies are letting these group homes operate. Orange
County-zoned for it and bus them in. There are privacy laws. Health insurance companies don't care
about long term care. Look at how the health care is not addressing it. Follow the money.
Gary Nessim -The city does not require business licenses for every boarding home. Safety
requirements, fire sprinklers if you have so many people in the home.
Chris N. -Accountability. ADA compliance, are they? It is not a licensable business.
Ellie -Operates Sober Living for Wome_n -SOR, regulates, has inspections from Sacramento no
overcrowding. We want to be good neighbors. We are trying to help.
Overview
Parking, concentration, emergency impacts, character, overcrowding, care supervised? bad operators,
trash, neighborhood compatibility, business license, and enhanced bldg .. codes, what are the safety and
building requirements.
Alexis -Asked about a group home on Pine. Does the Planning Dept. do anything in to have the houses
match?
Better coordination with State/City licensing.
No slip speaker asked -Are there occupancy limits?
• At least regulate vacation rentals and not put back to back on the same street.
Speaker asked: A violation of a code Do you always have to have a compliant to get action? Lack of
efficiency.
• Rosemary-DOCUMENT PLAN OF ACTION citizens on COMMITTEE
What kinds of recourse does the city have? Compliance, fines, court.
• Rosemary -After tonight, gather input and put it on a sheet as a communication piece.
SUMMARY -Information gathered here, and additional written comments will be developed into a
report. Can be provided between now and Fed. 12, 2020 to Kerry. This will be attached to City Council
report. An actual item on City Council agenda. Outline main questions. GOAL-to City Council
Workshop before summer.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 126 of 227
Would it be better to have this posted before 2/12 -next week? Public -YES!
City Council will decide what they want to do.
Keith -stated·staff will go thru this and organize it; City Council will have a discussion and give direction
to staff ..
Ad Hoc Committee -Barbara H. said citizens would be on it. 2/19/19 City Council agenda
David asked what the public thought the priorities were:
• Codes written and not being enforced.
• Operators accountability and follow-up
• Communication with residents
• Develop clear goals for the Ad Hoc Committee
• Timeliness of a response back to residents
Issue: Parking nuance.
Citizen heard the state pays the owner $3000 per resident, per. month. This should be regulated
somehow. ·
Problem solving: Quality of life -mitigate tqgether.
Keith Blackburn closes. You will be notified when it goes to City Council. It will go to city atty. The city is
taking this very seriously.
Mike -thanked the public for coming. If you want tq add additional comments, please give email to be
,notified. Staff has sign-up sheets available. ·
Adjourned: 7:00 p.m.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 127 of 227
Community Member Questions
Legal Questions
1) Can Sober Living Homes be licensed and put under similar operating conditions (good neighbor
agreements, parking guide lines, license posting, POC, 3-strikes policy for violations, etc.) as
short-term vacation rentals?
2) Can background checks ('criminal and mental health) be performed for group home operators
· and residents prior to home establishment and/ or tenant move in?
3) Can the city conduct "surprise" inspections of the Sober Living Home?
4) Can the number of residents residing in a sober living home be restricted?
5) Can the number of vehicles allowed to park at a sober living home be limited?
6) Can for profit sober living homes be denied, allowing only charity-based homes?
7} Can placement of gro_up homes in the city consider the distance from one group home to
another? (Deny group homes on the same block) Also, can this be expanded to include the
distance between group homes and STVRs?
8) Can group homes be required to have on-site supervision/ manager on premise?
9) Can the city work to change the definition of disabled persons to no longer include recovering
drug and alcohol addicts?
10) Sober living homes are home-based businesses and should be taxed and licensed as such . Why
isn't it a discriminatory practice to allow group homes to go unlicensed and tax free while other
home-based businesses are prescreened and taxed?
11} How can these homes operate without a governing body and oversight?
12) How can vulgar language used by group home residents be restricted?
Zoning Questions
1) How does the city ensure that group homes meet or exceed Building, Housing and Zoning
Codes? And, how can proactive enforcement be leveraged?
2) Can parking at group homes be restricted? If so, how?
3) Can smoking be restricted at group homes?
4) Can there be development standards specific to group homes? Require fire sprinklers, more
-square footage per resident, etc.?.
5) Can the number of cars allowed at a property be tied to the number of bedrooms?
Safety / Police Questions
1} How can resident safety be a priority if there is no on-site supervision?
2) How can the safety of neighbors of grciup homes be a priority and ensured?
3) Can police activity and call out information related to group homes be made public?
Ad Hoc Committee Process Questions
1) Why the delay with the project?
2) Why aren't residents a part of the Ad Hoc Committee?
3) Why hasn't staff reached out to State and Federal Elected Officials for support (if they have not
done so already)?
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 128 of 227
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 131 of 227
!....,..~-~~~--, ...... , ,/' . '. ' ... o;~--~---~"'-,.,.. _...,. ...... ~~,:,rt~t·•··""" -:· •'"'"""-";~~
· Sober Living Residence ··;
---·-·-· . . -. . . . . -~-. . ··-----.-----------·--=-J
• A Sober Living Home is a Recovery Residence
• Does not provide clinical services in the home
• Residents suffer from substance use disorders,
and are committed to recovery
• There is no license for a Sober Living
Residence to have. {Not licensable)·
• Recovery is based on mutual peer support
Definition of a Recovery Residence
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 137 of 227
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 141 of 227
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 143 of 227
Federal Fair Housing of 1-988: .
R .. . ,,: ec0ve~1nnc ·
. :,., .,·.:·•.,> .. ,s'.:\··''' ,: ..... ,,/'·'\,-,,· .. /·'•, \ •. ,,/· .', ·,,. •· .. ~ .. ,;,-~:;._ .
. alcoholics and
· drug addicts
are a ·protected
disabled. class .
. .., .. ·~:~.:.! ... ,,:.-t,::. -~--: ... <-.:·--~, ....... {~~~"_.: ~•:':,..__ __ :. -·~·:I -..... ::;,;-.,. ;::·, ::,--,, -=->;;-,~ .. :~ i--.-.. :· . .-::t,~---. -, .... -:-·\ •~ ... r/
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 168 of 227
.State & Federal .
. Fair . Housing Laws,·
. . ,r .. s,· ,.
• Prohibits housing discrimination for persons with aisabilities.
• Disabilities include alcoholics and recovering addicts
• Disabled unrelated persons can live together in a dwelling as a family unit.
• Criminal justice-involved residents are a grey area.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 170 of 227
Rosemary Eshelman, 1133 Camino Del Sol Circle, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Notes about Ad Hoc Co.mmittee Sober Living Homes in Carlsbad
Presented to City Council February 19, 2019 with other neighbors about the amount of services that the
home at 1110 Camino Del Sol Circle were utilizing and the amciunt of chaos we were experiencing
because of this sober Living home, group home 6 person home, un licensed rental.
Council unanimously voted to create c:1n ad hoc committee to {I thought work with residents and staff) to
look into this and other communities as to what was happening with Sober Living Homes.
Council Members Barbara Hamilton and Keith Blackburn were assigned to th~ committee with no input
from residents or staff.
Barbara Hamilton resigns October 31, 2019. District 1 now has No representative per se.
I reached out to council and staff about the ad hoc committee possibly meeting with no response.
Fast forward to February 2020 and a meeting is taking place for group homes in Carlsbad . Since I had
been engaged rn the original conversations I was invited.
The meeting overview is basically we are not here to solve any problems just to give you the facts and
background about what a group home can and cannot do in Carlsbad. The City Representative David
Graham Chief Innovation Officer and Mike Peterson Assistant Director presented with four other staff
members, Councilman Blackburn and a police officer in attendance.
My first question of the evening was this was a whole year without communication from the City of
Carlsbad. Has there been any conversations with other citie.s by staff, legislative conversations with
Sacramento? Assemblywomen Tasha Horvath has an .office in Carlsbad on Carlsbad Village Drive that
should be easy enough. Council member Co.ri Schumacher worked for her.
No conversations with other cities just stats about what group homes are and what the city can and
cannot do. I am sorry but I relish my evenings and this was a waste of time. There were no results other
than it will go back to council and you will be notified before summer. The way i understand it the ad
hoc committee is done in July 2020.
Closure was what you want to see from the group attending:
Business Licensing
Local oversight
Accountability Just like the rest of us paying citizens
District 1 has been not represented for the past year. Two people have been killed in District 1; recently
a 70 year old woman in a secure assisted living facility was attacked in District 1.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 182 of 227
Janann Taylor
January 31, 2020
Kerry Jezisek
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
, CA 92008
Dear Kerry, City of Carlsbad Staff, Mayor and City Council:
I attended the Group Homes Public Meeting that was held Wednesday, January 29 from
5:30 -7:30 pm. It was an interesting meeting to discuss some differences between
. Licensed and Unlicensed Group Living Arrangements.
Mostly this meeting discussed how "Group Recovery Homes" are designed by a property
owner to provide "group living arrangements for people who are attempting to recover
from a drug and /or alcohol addictions".
· 1 am grateful for the opportunity to explore this challenge to the quality of life created by
founders oftl-ie City of Carlsbad and us. Yes, It is an opportunity to voice concerns for this
situation and to participate in the process of dialogue to build awareness, compassion and
solutions.
At the meeting I voiced the concern of Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
I have pers~nal experience of working with neighbors and the City of Carlsbad to secure a
property to provide education to children aged 5-12 years. The facility was staffed with
professionals with appropriate qualifications and the sit~ was prepared with drives for
emergency vehicles, fire sprinklers, alarms, ADA requirements for entrance, egress and
bathrooms. Several times architects, engineers, co.nsultants and planners presented to
the City for review to assure that there would be a quality of life for the children receiving
education and the neighboring properties. Traffic engineers and lighting experts were
called upon to present. All of these experts were compensated to guarantee the property
would be used for the greater good, as well as a location to create a livelih_ood for myself
and staff.
It is clear that there are those who wish to create an income by providing space for
persons whose families or loved ones have experienced addictions. It is a commendable
pursuit, if the intention is to uplift the people in need and community.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 183 of 227
At the meeting, several speakers including a former First Responder, Tiffani Czapinksi,
detailed descriptions of group homes that were dreadful and shameful to the point that
the home subjected the 'person in recovery' to abhorrent and abusive living conditions.
From the City of Carlsbad Council and Staff, citizens and property owners have heard that
there are laws and protections for the landlord of the Group Home to carry on with
business as they see fit ,abiding to expectations of occupancy of any household, the
definition of which is that the occupants apparently eat meals 'together'. Also, the
Uniform Housing Code, was mentioned as one method to assure standards. We
understand that Americans have Constitutional Rights of 'life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness' which includes families who have single family residences in a stable
neighborhood.
However, most of what the City of Carlsbad Council and Staff have presented and
showcased were Codes, Ordinances and Laws which are in place to protect Group
Homes for Drug and Alcohol Addiction, several,of which have been a threat to peace, _
safety and well-being in residential neighborhoods. As paid experts, legal counsel
and representatives of the entire population in Carlsbad, it is imperative that professional
guidance be utilized to protect the residents in our neighborhoods. Council, the legal
team and Staff must use their best skills, insight, talents and wisdom to maintain and
protect families in grounded neighborhoods.
On Pine Avenue, there is a project at the Planning Department which is being built with the
intention of being For-Profit Group Home. The property at 1284 Pine has been placed,
I believe, in an LLC and has had a long history of building "out of character and
compatibility" with the neighborhood. My objection to having a Group Home installed
on this site is: safety of elderly who regularly walk for exercise on the street; youth
who bike and skateboard; families with children who regularly walk past the
property going to school, Holiday Park, Krueger House, either Learning Center or
Cole Library, the athletic fielcls at Pine Park and the Scout ~ouse.
Our neighborhood is unique for the established urban forest. The owner at 1284 has left
the property bare surrounded .by plastic for many years, which_ shows no regard for
aesthetic of this neighborhood and the values of its Carlsbad residents.
The original Owner is a non-Carlsbad resident who has deliberately constructed multi-
family structures in this designated R-! single-family neighborhood and has never had
a town meeting to explore how to cooperate with concerned residents. . .
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 184 of 227
Due to concerns of the residents, the Building, Engineering and Planning Departments
have been involved to modify, yet the arrangement persists as apartments for non-related
persons. Hence accountability is a major issue moving forward. There are other locations
to put in apartments with suitable lighting, ADA enhancements for Group Home and
lighting. Basically, this developer purchased land for a single-family house with perhaps
attached or detached second dwelling unit, yet manipulating the City of Carlsbad to have
his way trying every angle to gain huge profits. First he attempted Vacation Rentals
and now Group Homes: not to enhance the community, but exploiting the situation
for his own profit.
Additionally, many locations or establishments nearby are available for legal purchase
of alcohol and lodging available on Pio Pico and near the freeway off Carlsbad Village
Drive. In conclusion, forth is location it must be maintained that the owner not build
specifically for a Group Home nor a Vacation Rental. Surely the City has some discretion
when permitting for new construction that does not violate the federal Fair Housing Act or
Health and Safety Codes. Hopefully you can support this point of view and assist us, as the
residents of Pine Avenue have been living and working in Olde Carlsbad for generations.
We request your conscientious support to maintain safety and decency for all the.
generations present on this street.
Cumulative effect is my third major concern when allowing permits to build Group
Homes in a neighborhood. If and when Group Homes are located in close proximity to
other licensed or unlicensed facilities, the result is a district where standards and
reputation is developed and maintained. The history and demographics of Carlsbad has
been families participating in community. Must residents choose to create walls
barricading single family residences from influences of a Group Home?
The City of Carlsbad has the obligation to use resources and expertise to preserve the
integrity and value of neighborhoods and protect the standards to which homeowners
and taxpayers are accustomed. I trust that there will be appropriate guidance for a
positive outcome and solution
Sincerely,
Janann Taylor
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 185 of 227
From: Martha Law-Edwards >
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 8:14 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; Manager Internet Email
<Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; David Graham <David.Graham@carlsbadca.gov>; Celia Brewer
<Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Kerry Jezisek <Kerry.Jezisek@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Response to the Group Homes Public Meeting Held January 29, 2020
To All Concerned:
Thank you for taking the time to consider the following:
Fact# 1 -On September 20, 2018, the residents of Pine Ave (between Pio Pico and Highland
Ave) submitted a petition to the City Council to form an Ad Hoc Committee for the purpose of
addressing the concerns with sober living residences. 97% of the residents signed the petition. The
petition -specifically asked that the Committee be comprised of residents and city staff.
Fact# 2 -At the City Council Meeting of February 19, 2019, a 21 page report was submitted to the
Council by _Scott Chadwick and Debbie Fountain entitled " Informational staff report on sober living
homes and applicable regulations" ·
Fact# 3 -Following the presentation and discussion of the report mentioned above, the City
·council, with a 5-0 vote, approved the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee to address the issue of
sober living residences/group homes.
Fact# 4 -On January 29, 2020 a Group Homes Public Meeting was held -facilitated by David
Graham and Mike Peterson. ·
Fact# 5 -At the onset of the Public Meeting, Mr. Graham stated that the meeting was not to be a
dialogue on the subject of Group Homes, but a forum to receive input from community members
present. Various city staff members sat dutifully and silently in the back row. Further, Mr. Graham
stated the city staff in attendance would be the ones to compile the input and then submit yet
another report to the City Council -possibly by the summertime.
Response #1 -The time delay of responding to a clear directive by the City Council on February
19, 2019 is troublesome.
Response #2 -The lack of inclusion of residents in the process of formulating follow-up
recommendations to the Council is in direct conflict to the sincere petition submitted by city
residents; and consequently, a general lack of regard for those who actually experience the
immediate impact of group homes in their neighborhood.
Response #3 -Mr. Chadwick and Ms. Fountain listed in their report five possible actions that
could be researched further. Rather than a regurgitation of what has already been presented, allow
residents and city staff to proceed TOGETHER in continuirig this effort to provide recommendations
to the City Council -in a timely fashion.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 186 of 227
Response # 4 -It is the obligation and responsibility of elected officials and their assigned
· designees to represent the interests of their constituents. That is our expectation and right as
residents of this wonderful city of Carlsbad. To do otherwise, could be viewed as a dereliction of
duty.
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha Law-Edwards
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unfe$S you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 187 of 227
-----Original Message---
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 8:01 AM
. Cc: David De Cordova <David.deCordova@carlsbadca.gov>; Mike Peterson
<Mike.Peterson@carlsbadca.gov>
· Subject: FW: Opposition to For-Profit Group Home on Pine avenue
-----Original Message-----
From: SYLVIA G RAMIREZ
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 7:38 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to For-Profit Group Home on Pine avenue
I am opposed to the possible approval of a for~profit group home on Pine Ave, the center of Old Rural
Carlsbad. The council would be liable if anything-happened by brining this element into single family
homes next to a park and pre-school. I have lived on Pine Avenue for more than 40 years and raised my
five ch_ildren on Pine Avenu~. I have seen the slow deterioration of Holiday Park. We have had to call
the police numerous times because of alcohol and drug abuses by homeless people in the park. Unless
neighbors call continually, this park has not been well supervised . This is especially concerning because
there is a well-regarded pre-school run by the city of Carlsbad in this park. In fact I made a decision to
not send my granddaughter to that pre-school because of the continuing issues with.the unsupervised
homeless in the park who are abusing alcohorand drugs, often in broad daylight. Now,' the council is
considering bringing in a For-profit Group home for people in recovery to an already unstable situation
that Carlsbad ha.s not been able to effectively patrol. Children will be in danger, and that is
inconceivable to me. You must look at the reality of the park situation, the numerous children who are
in this area at all times of the day, and the surrounding neighborhood and see that it is not conducive to
this type of for-profit residence. You have a person who is not a Carlsbad resident, who previously tried
to "sneak in" vacation rentals, and now wants to make a profit any way he can without regard for the
neighborhood, the safety of children, or the already difficult park situation. I ask you to do your civic
duty and deny this permit. Please uphold the values and safety of Carlsbad citizens and have respect for
the needs of the community.
Sylvia G Ramirez
Carlsbad; California
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 188 of 227
-----Original Message-----
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 3:54 PM
Cc: Mike Peterson <Mike.Peterson@carlsbadca.gov>; David De Cordova
<David,deCordova@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Group Home on Pine Avenue
-----Origina I Message-----
From: Raymond Ramirez
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 3:21 PM
To: Council Internet-Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Group Home on Pine Avenue
Council, we live on Pine Avenue and we oppose the idea of a substance abuse group home in our block ..
We vote "no" to this ill conceived notion that this situation would be compatible with the values and
realities of this residential neighborhood. I suspect that this is being proposed for the income it would
generate rather than for a concern for any recovery of this population or for the continued tranquility
of this rural segment of olde Carlsbad. This proposal would generate unnecessary increases in the
liabilities profile for the city and its residents especially those on Pine Avenue, Holiday Park and the
children's day care center practically next door.
Sincerely,
Raymond and Sylvia Ramirez
Sent from my iPad
Raymond Ramirez
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 189 of 227
Kerry Jezisek
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good Morning,
Martha Law-Edwards <
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:00 AM
Celia Brewer; Manager Internet Email; David Graham; Council Internet Email
Don Neu; Kerry Jezisek
Fwd: Press Release
The attached press release reports the legal precedent that has been set by the joint effort of the Orange County District
Attorney's Office and the California Department of Insurance in the healthcare fraud by the operators of so-called sober
living homes. What we have cautioned you about has now been clearly and legally exposed. It would be foolish to think
that this type of miscarriage of faith and trust entrusted in these establishments by the vulnerable and their families is
not, in fact, a similar reality in some other for-profit businesses embedded within our residential communities.
Based on this, and on behalf of all concerned Carlsbad residents, I formally request that an investigation be conducted of
similar businesses that exist within our residential neighborhoods -most specifically, into the owner and operator of
such establishments at 1204 Oak Ave, and 1274-84 Pine Ave. Further, we ask that no building permit be issued to the
prop_osed project at 1284 Pine Ave, as it clearly displays through design and past egregious behavior of the owner, that
yet another such business is about to add to an adverse encroachment into our community.
There is no excuse not to pursue this. I ask that a reply to this formal request be issued at your earliest convenience.
Most sincerely,
Martha Law-Edwards
http://orangecountyda.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=12&Entry=5957&fbclid=
I CAUTION: ·oo not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content!
jis safe.I
1
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 190 of 227
Mohases was arrested on January 13, 2020 and arraigned on January 14, 2020, he has pied not guilty. He is out on $250,000 bail
and is scheduled for a pre-trial on February 5, 2020 in Department C-57.
Reeves was arrested on January 14, 2020 and arraigned ori January 15, 2020, he has pied not guilty. He is out on $100,000 bail
and is scheduled for a pre-trial on January 22, 2020 in Department C-55. A preliminary hearing for this suspect is scheduled for
February 13, 2020 in Department C-55.
Frageau appeared in Court on warrant on January 15, 2020, he was arraigned on January 15, 2020. 1-ie is out on $250,000 bail
and is scheduled for a continued arraignment on February 7, 2020.
J Williams turned himself into Huntington Beach Police Department on January 15, 2020. No arraignment date has been scheduled
for him yet.
Lomonaco was arrested on January 16, 2020. He is scheduled to be arraigned January 17, 2020.
Deputy District Attorney James Bilek of the Insurance Fraud Unit at The Orange Couf')ty District Attorney's Office is prosecuting
this case.
###
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 192 of 227
Kerry Jezisek
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc: .
Subject:
Good Afternoon, .
Alexa Kingaard
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:25 PM
Martha Law-Edwards
Celia Brewer; Manager Internet Email; David Graham; Council Internet Email; Don Neu;
Kerry Jezisek
Re: Press Release
As part of a a third generation home-owner at 1344 Pine Avenue, I agree with my
neighbor, Martha Law-Edwards, that we deserve the same respect and commitment from.
our city that you have shown the builder of the Sober Living Facility on Oak Avenue and
proposed facility on Pine Avenue. I hope your better judgment will allow you to delve
further into this situation and protect the many long-time residents who have built this
town.
Please don't misconstrue our intentibn to demand further investigation into the owner of
these "group homes" as a dismissal of the residents who are suffering and truly in need of
a comprehensive, compassionate program. Their health and well-being is also at risk with
community environments that are meant solely for profit, and not recovery. This situation
affects all Carlsbad homeowners, renters, tourists, and visitors. We expect a fair,
unbiased and lawful solution before further building permits are issued for the
construction of the proposed sober living facility at 1274:-1284 Pine Ave. Thank you for
your time.
Alexa Holmes Kingaard
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 10:59 AM Martha Law-Edwards wrote:
Good Morning,
The attached press release reports the legal precedent that has been set by the joint effort of the Orange County
District Attorney's Office and the Cc;11ifornia Department of Insurance in the healthcare fraud by the operators of so-
called sober living homes. What we have cautioned you about has now been clearly and legally exposed. It would be
foolish to think that this type of miscarriage of faith and trust entrusted in these establishments by the vulnerable and
their families is not, in fact, a similar reality in some other for-profit businesses embedded within our residential
communities.
Based on this, and on behalf of all concerned Carlsbad residents, I formally request that an investigation be conducted
of similar businesses that exist within our residential neighborhoods-most specifically; into the owner and operator of
such establishments at 1204 Oak Ave, and 1274-84 Pine Ave. Further, we ask that no building permit be issued to the
proposed project at 1284 Pine Ave, as it clearly displays through design and past egregious behavior of the owner; that
yet another such business is about to add to an adverse encroachment into our community.
There is no excuse not to pursue this. I ask that a reply to this formal request be issued at your earliest convenience.
1 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 193 of 227
Most sincerely,
Martha Law~Edwards
http://orangecountyda.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=12&Entry=5957&fbclid=
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
2 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 194 of 227
Kerry Jezisek
From: Mike Peterson
. Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1 :37 PM
To:
Subject:
Tom Mallory; Laureen Ryan; Jeff Murphy; Kerry Jezisek
Fwd: Sober Living Homes and Fraud
Attachments: Sober Living Home Fraud.html; ATT00001.htm
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rosemary Eshelman
Date: February 11, 2020 at 1:09:02 PM PST
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>, Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>, Cori
Schumacher<Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>, Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@CarlsbadCA.gov>,
Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>, Mike Peterson <Mike.Peterson@carlsbadca.gov>,
David Graham <David.Graham@carlsbadca.gov>, Gary Barberio <Gary.Barberio@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Soberliving Homes and Fraud
AH ' Since the last meeting of Group Homes (Sober Living
Homes) this was brought to my attention by Senator Bates
office. Sh~ has been working on a bill in Sacram~nto to
bring attention to the predators that recruit for the sake of
· money. Her bill was shot down, but I know Pat she will
not give up she has a social work background and
. understands this line of work. I just want you all to
understand that these homes are making money, they
should be licensed and there should be accountability.
When the hom.e that .opened at 1110 Camino Del Sol
Circle years back I noticed cars with expired plates from
many states throughout the country and started calling
. Ca'rlsbad PD. They were towed as some had expired plates
or had been there for weeks.
1 May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 195 of 227
Thank you for taking the time I know you have many
other issues going on, but I just don't think this one is as
it seems. When you live near it daily you notice.
Rosemary
__ ,_ Rosf'.'m2irv Es,wln1i.10
. .-1-;;-~l...• ;;'i_·r:! '?-:·•-~ '~-, .. _,...! .':;_:~·-: ,;..,::/1:J.11 ~ Cansbad Unl1led School Dls1rict ~ ''ii P~ $225 El Ca!11!'.10 R~ Carlsoad. CA92009
!CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender andl
!know the content is safe. I
2
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 196 of 227
$3.2 Million Sober Living Home Fraud Scheme Shut Down
Five defendants charged with multiple felonies for preying on vulnerable
substance abuse patients to bilk insurance company out of millions ; ·
I ,
SANTA ANA, Calif. -A joint effort by the Orange County District Attorney's Office and the California
Department of Insurance has shut down an alleged $3.2 million healthcare fraud ring which preyed on
vulnerable substance ab\jse patients in order to bilk an insurance company out of millions.
Steven Lomonaco, 61, of Laguna Beach, Mahyar "Christian" Mohases, 37, of Santa Ana, Robert Williams, 41, of
Murrieta, Nicholas Reeves, 42, of Aliso Viejo, and James Frageau, 29, of Temecula have been charged with
multiple felony counts including insurance fra~d and money laundering in connection with the scheme.
Mohases, Williams, Reeves, and Frageau have. each been charged with two counts of committing medical
insurance fraud, one count of fraudulent written claim to an insurance company, two counts of money
laundering in excess of $150,000, four counts of money laundering, and cine enhancement for aggravated white
collar crime over $200,000. They each face a maximum sentence of 14 years if convicted on all charges.
Lomonaco has been charged with two counts of committing medical insurance fraud, one count of fraudulent
written claim to an insurance company, one count of medical insurance fraud, and one enhancement for
aggravated white collar crime over $200,000. He faces a maximum sentence of 8 years 4 months if convicted on
all charges. ·
"Th heartless nature of these crimes are appaling," said Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. "These suspects.
trafficked vulnerable substance abuse patients to California just to make a quick buck from the insurance
company, with no regard for their lives, health or recovery. Thanks to the efforts of Department of Insurance
investigators, and our close work with District Attorney Todd Spitzer's office, there is one less fraud ring preying
on unsuspecting patients."
Mohases, Frageau, Williams and Reeves are accused of finding patients across the country who were seeking
help for substance use recovery and flying them to California to enter treatment at Casa Bella International Inc.,
which was owned and operated by Lomonaco. In order to obtain payment from the insurance company for
these patients, Mohases, Frageau, Williams and Reeves directed employees to fill out policies for the patients
using false information. ·
They are accused of lying on the insurance applications, stating that patients lived in California, when in
actuality the addresses were for employees or businesses related to the co-conspirators. Lomonaco paid the
other co-conspirators upwards of $10,000 per patient who stayed enrolled in treatment for more than 30 days.
"Sober living homes are valuable resources designed to facilitate recovery and healing for patients battling
potentially life-threating addiction issues," said Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. "Instead of
helping these patients, these individuals preyed on extremely susceptible people and exploited their addictions
for profit. Working closely with the california Department of Insurance, we are cracking down on these criminals
and their predatory operations in order to protect substance abuse patients from unknowingly being trafficked,
as protect their loved ones and insurance companies from these unscrupulous operators."·
In order to pay the insurance premiums, the defendants are accused of developing a massive money laundering
scheme in which they filtered money through non-profit, StopB4UStart, by providing "donations" from Mohases,
Frageau, Williams and Reeves under their corporation, Nationwide Recovery. These "donations" would be
cashed out, and the owner of StopB4UStart would receive cashier's checks in specified amounts based on the
information he received from one of the other co-conspirators. More than 800 checks in total were used to pay
the insurance premiums on the·fraudulent policies.
Mohases was arrested on January 13, 2020 and arraigned on January 14, 2020, he has pied not guilty. He is
out on $250,000 bail' and is scheduled for a pre-trial on February 5, 2020 in Department C-57.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 197 of 227
Reeves was arrested on January 14, 2020 and arraigned on January 15, 2020, he has pied not guilty. He is out
on $100,000 bail and is scheduled for a pre-trial on January 22, 2020 in Department C-55. A preliminary hearing
for this suspect is scheduled for February 13, 2020 in Department C-55.
Frageau appeared in Court on warrant on January 15, 2020, he was arraigned on January 15, 2020. He is out .
on $250,000 bail and is scheduled for a continued arraignment on February 7, 2020.
Williams turned himself into Huntington Beach Police Department on January 15, 2020. No arraignment date
has been scheduled for him yet.
Lomonaco was arrested on January .16, 2020. He is scheduled to be arraigned January 17, 2020.
Deputy District Attorney James Bilek of the Insurance Fraud Unit at The Orange County District Attorney's Office
· is prosecuting this case.
###
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 198 of 227
Date: February 12, 2020
To: Carlsbad City Council
Re: Sober Living Group Homes in Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad City Council,
Hello. I have been a Carlsbad r~ldent living ln the same single family home with my wife since 2009,
and have had a child in our home since 2012. On January 29; 2020, I attended the "Group Homes .
Public Meeting'.' Where the City of Carlsbad was seeking input on this topic from residents, This was a
very welcome meeting, as my family and neighbors haVefelt helptess to affect a much needed change
in the laws and guidelines governing these facili1:i8$. At the end of that meeting, attendees were
encouraged to send further written input to oe included in a report that will be presented to the
Carlsbad City Council, who presumably will take necessary actions t0; protect all citizens of the
community and improve their overall quality of life. I would like the issues I ra:ise1 outlined below in this
document; to be included in that report. My conqerns that follow are organized into sections of
information.
My Family's Circumstance
I live in the beautiful La Costa Meadows area of Carlsbad in a single family residential neighborhood.
In March of 2017, without noti.ce to anyone, the home directly adjacent to my property was sold and
immediately converted from a traditional family residence to a sober living faciTity for recovering
alcohol and drug addicts. The facility houses up to 10 recovering addicts (all men) living in the home.
The presence .of this facility has· led to a major negative impact on my family, my property, and the
neighl;>0rhood asa whole. We feel victimized by opportunistic proprietors and a broken legal system
that has been set up to favor these facilities while completely ignoring any harm done to other
residents.
Compromised Personal Safety
• No Vetting of Tenants: Realistically, most people with addiction problerns have a history-of poor
judgement arid self controL It is a reasonable conclusion to assur:ne that this trait could lead to
criminal and/or inappropriate behaviors for some. There is no regulation in place to monitor or filter
. indMduals who might endanger or compromise the sanctity of the community with their behavior.
We have no way .of knowing who these people are or .ifihey present a credible risk to the
community. There are no standards in place to evaluate and convey the mental health and/or
criminal records of individuals placed in these facilities.
• No Supervision of Tenants: MY understanding is that, by law, no tre;:itment for addiction snould be
pccurring at these facilities. Given that fact, picture up to10 recovering addicts thrown together in
tight living quarters with nothing but each other to keep them in check. These are people with
severe behaviora1 problems. They are mostly young people and their observ.ed actions lead me to
believe. they ~re largely immature. I have personally witnessed disturbing behaviors on multiple
occasions. One of many examples: For a period of time, as part of their group meeting regiment, the
sober living residents decided to start bonfires in their yard. This directly correlated with a time .of
high winds/heat and active red alert fire threat warnings in the area. The disturbing antics included
·' throwing furniture on the fire arid laughing as sparks rose higher than a two story building.
Unfortunately, on at least 3 occasions, the fire became out of control and created a credible danger
to the neighborhood which prompted formal complaints. Neighbors are acutely paranoJd where this ·
sort of behavior can lead if these men continue to fend for themselves.
1 of 5
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 199 of 227
• High Incidence of Relapse: Look at any credible study on relapse rates for drug and alcohol
addiction and you will see that the relapse rate is extremely high. By some accounts; this can be as
high as 80%, even after being in a treatment program. My concern here is that my family is not just
living next door to up to 1 O recovering addicts, but potentially a high percentage of active users.
This would certainly amplify the potential risk of inappropriate behaviors.
• High Tenant Turnover Rate: This home has a revolving door of tenants that move in or out very
frequently. Transient people almost never have the same sense of pride and loyalty to their
community. They do not have any personal connection with the neighborhood. They will be gone in
a short period, so the personal stakes are low if they make poor choices in relation to the people
and property of the neighborhood. Once they are .gone, there is no accountability.
• · Poor Environment for You~g Children: Ask yourself, would you want your young child to live next
door to up to 1 O recovering drug addicts who consistently display questionable behavior? The
answer from any responsible parent would, of course, be "no". No parent wants to subject their
child to unnecessary risks of any kind. Because we have no way of knowing the true threat of these
individuals, the only responsible thing to do is to err on the side of caution. Unfortunately there are ·
other consequences for a family living in this unusual circumstance. For instance, my son is now not
allowed to play outside in his own yard unless closely supervised at all times. Also, my son wanted
to have a large birthday party at our house, but we had to deny the request because we felt the
unpredictable behavior of the addicts next door was not conducive to entertaintng a group of
children. My son asks questions about the men next door such as "Why can't I knock on their door
and visit with them like I do our other neighbors?". As much as I would like to give these men the
benefit of doubt, as I do feel sympathy for their plight, I value my family's personal safety too greatly
to just blindly trust them. The lack of regulations governing these tenants forces this paranoid
behavior from people like us.
Decreased Property Value
• Prospective Home Buyers Deterred: We believe that the presence of a sober living home next door
to our property has not only decreased the value of our home, but possibly made it unsellable.
· • Realistically, the moment any prospective home buyer finds out that their potential next door
neighbors are up to 10 recovering addicts, they will not buy our home, especially ifthey have
children. Living next fo a sober living home is a liability that nearly all home buyers would not
willingly. accept. So, despite being extremely frustrated that my family has been victimized by this
situation, we are unable to simply sell our home and move, without taking an unacceptable
monetary loss on our property.
• Delayed/Cancelled Home Improvements: ·Our family has a long term plan for improving our home
with upgrades and remodel projects. We completed a major remodel to the home in 2013, and
considered that to be the first of many similar upgrades to the property. These upgrades should be
a sound investment and welcomed by the neighborhood as a signal for increasing overall real estate
value. However, we have now made the decision to indefinitely suspend any significant home
improvement projects because of the property value impact of the sober living facility next door. We
believe that further improvements will not help our home value because no one will want to
purchase our home, regardless of improvements. Note that if this becomes a pervasive attitude
shared by all neighbors, this can ultimately lead to the decline of the neighborhood as a whole.
• Poor Choices by Sober Living Home: The mere presence of the sober living home has already
created a huge real estate value problem for their immediate neighbors. To.make matters worse, the
proprietor of the sober living facility has made additional poor choices for the property in an effort to
accommodate the large number of inhabitants in the facility. These choices have amplified the
problem by damaging the neighborhood aesthetic. For instance, what was once a nicely
landscaped front and side yard, is now surrounded by a very tall cheap piastic fence. What was
once a beautiful spacious grassy lawn has been replaced with gia.nt storage shacks, an expansive
covered area to house group meetings, and a disarray of wood chips everywhere else. What was
2of5
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 200 of 227
• Lack of Neighborly Attitude: Neighborhoods such as ours have a personality. I would describe ours
to be friendly and cordial. However, the inhabitants of the sober living facility make no attempt to
interact with any neighbors or even aspire to something as simple as a wave hello occasionally.
They consistently live in what I would describe as their own tittle self-serving bubble where nothing
matters in the outside world. My perception of this attitude is that possibly the tenants are so
focused on their own severe problems that they don't have the interest or skills to interact in a
normal way with the neighborhood.-A group home in a single family residential neighborhood is
awkward, inappropriate, and possibly embarrassing to all involved, including the recovering addicts.
In addition, many neighbors have expressed to me a level of fear of the sober living residents based
on the uncertainty of their stability. The neighborly attitude of our community has been damaged by
the presence of this facility.
Unfair Sober Living Home Laws
• Recovering Addicts Inappropriately Classified as "Disabled": As I understand it, there are federal
and state laws in place that classify recovering alcoholics and drug addicts as "disabled". While the
intent of this classification is surely to help those with addiction problems, this ill-conceived
expansion of the law has clearly been $u$ed by opportunists both in recovery and those preyin_g
on those in recovery. For starters, the standards for being classified as a drug addict, and in turn
"disabled," are sketchy at best. Further, the argument for placing drug addicts into the same
disabled group as-cerebral palsy, paraplegia, or blindness victims is highly in que$tion and arguably
inappropriate. The reason that this classification is significant. is because once a person is deemed
as "disabled, u it becomes unlawful to consider their disability as a factor with regard to housing,
employment, and other life issues. This opens the door for exploitation.
• Unethical Proprietors Exploit Loophole in Laws: The classification of addicts as "disabled" has
allowed sober living facilities to move into residential neighborhoods unchecked. Proprietors of
these facilities know that no one can legally question their actions and that they have no
responsibility to alert the other homeowners, realtors, or any level of government regarding their
intent. The law has given theni a license to freely operate these facilities despite the detriment of
those affected by their presence. Additionally, while proprietors rake in huge profits on these
facilities, there are absolutely no checks and balances in place to ensure that their tenants are in an
environment that is conducive to recovery. Because the profit margin is so high on these homes,
proprietors are only incentivized to keep their homes stuffed full and to keep the tenants there as
long as possible. My belief is that these facilities are businesses which are largely preying on
addicts while operating for profit in residential neighborhoods and masquerading as homes.
Proprietors are able to hide behind a vefl of being altruistic, wh-ich may be true hi some rare
instances, but the negative incentives in place have enabled an overall system of corruption.
• Fear of Challenging the Law: Most people can objectively see that there are problems with the
current treatment of sober living facilities. But few are willing to do anything about it. There is a
whole new niche of attorneys emerging specifically to defend and cash-in on these sober living
facilities. These lawyers are well-versed on the loopholes which allow the facllities to operate. Just
as the proprietors are preying on neighborhoods, these layers in turn prey on the proprietors
because they know a lot of money is at stake for them. Of course, the real losers in this legal mess
are other homeowners and sometimes the cities that attempt to defend them. Private homeowners
cannot afford to take on the legal teams hired by sober living corporations and are forced to endure
their negative affects. Cities, even if they know it's the right thing to do, are scared that there will be
political, budgetary, and public relations consequences for taking on these laws. If you look into.
previous court cases of in this realm, it is rare that justice prevails. The result is usually that the
sober living facilities continue to operate unchecked. Everyone who could make a difference turns
the other way and pretends it isn't a problem. I hope that my city and community are different, not
afraid to do the right thing, .
4of5 -May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 202 of 227
Action Taken:
v Notes
By law, everyone has the right to choose where to live without discrimination, including
individuals with disabilities. Individuals recovering from drug or alcohol addiction are defined as
disabled under the Fair Housing Act. ·
It may also be a violation of the Fair Housing Act to:
• Prohibit or restrict group homes based on the belief that the residents will be members of a
protected class, such as recovering substance-abuse addicts.
• Impose restrictions on where group homes may be located because of alleged public safety
concerns, for example, by requiring a group home to provide additional security measures based
on the belief that the persons of a protected class are more likely to engage in criminal activity.
• Impose additional restrictions or conditions on group homes which are not imposed on families
or other groups of unrelated individuals. For example, the Oty cannot require an occupancy
permit for group homes and not require it for other residents living in single-family homes.
Please sendthe response above to the community member and the resident.
Note Created Modified
Troy Mallory Hi Tom, if you need anything further please reach out 2/12/2020 4:51:00 PM by
to Kerry J. Thanks, Laureen Laureen Ryan
v Message History
Date
2/12/2020 4:51:00 PM by I Laureen Ryan
~
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 207 of 227
Date
CC: tom.mallory@carlsbadca.gov; Sheila.Cobian@carlsbadca.gov; david.graham@carlsbadca.gov; elaiile.lukey@carlsbadca.gov;
gary.barberio@carlsbadca.gov; scott.chadwick@carlsbadca.gov; kerry.jezisek@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Carlsbad Public Records Request Center Correspondence Request :: C001093-020620
Body:
RE: Council Inquiry of February 06, 2020., Reference# C001093-020620.
Dear Ms. Law-Edwards,
The City of Carlsbad received a request from you on February 06, 2020. Your request was regarding the Jan. 29 town hall meeting.
Response: We' re sorry you were dissatisfied with the Jan. 29 town hall meeting the city held with community members to discuss the
subject of group homes.
That.meeting was intended to hear and take note of the public concerns on the subject and to identify any potential ideas for how to
address the issue of group homes.
Staff members involved recall that most of the hour-and-a-half-long meeting was spent on gathering input on the topic from community
members. At no point were any community members denied an opportunity to share their concerns, input and ideas.
City staff gathered that material to assess the concerns of highest priority to those in attendance. This information will be shared with the
· City Council and the public at a future City Council workshop meeting. ·
The discussion at that meeting revealed some concerns, which you have also expressed, that the ad-hoc subcommittee did not include
residents, as the petition submitted by community members had requested. The City Council chose to appoint two of its members to this
ad-hoc subcommittee.
Carlsbad City Council sub-committees are just that, sub-committees usually comprised of two council members. Members of the public
would not be sitting members of a city council sub-committee. The sub-committees can, of course, receive information from staff
members and members of the community. But ultimately it is the members of the City Council who provide the direction for that sub-
. committee, not community members or city staff.
Regarding this sub-committee, the City Council approved a minute motion February 19, 2019, directing staff to return with an agenda
item to create an Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee on Sober Living Homes "with limited duration, composed of residents and legal
staff." Consideration of the Ad-Hoc Sober Living Home Subcommittee item was then scheduled for the July 23, 2019 agenda.
Given that ad-hoc committees can be comprised solely of members of the City Council, that is, no staff and no members of the public,
the staff report for this agenda item recommended that the subcommittee be comprised of two council members who would engage
community stakeholders and work with staff to gather information for the committee's recommendations to the full City Council. This
recommendation was contained in the resolution that was approved by the council at its July 23, 2019 meeting. That resolution officially
established the Ad-Hoc Sober Living Subcommittee, and the council appointed council members Keith Blackburn and Barbara Hamilton
as its two members.
You asked why ii took as long as ii did for this sub-committee to hold the Jan. 29 public meeting. Less than two months after the
subcommittee was formed, subcommittee member Hamilton resigned from the City Council. Around this same time, a key staff member
who oversaw this issue retired from city service. These factors delayed the launch of this project.
In a separate inquiry, you requested that the City of Carlsbad conduct a criminal investigation into sober living homes in residential
neighborhoods in Carlsbad, following the model of a similar investigation that was initiated in Orange County. It would be up to law
enforcement agencies to determine whether to open such a criminal investigation. If you have any evidence of criminal activity in such
enterprises, we ask that you please share it with the Carlsbad Police Department, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, the
California Attorney General' s Office or, in cases of insurance fraud, the California Department of Insurance.
Your concerns have been shared with the City Council, who will also get a copy of your inquiry and this response.
For your reference, here is some additional background on the topic, which was provided at the January 29, 2020, meeting:
The City of Carlsbad has limited authority to impose and enforce restrictive regulations on group homes. California law explicitly protects
unlicensed group homes, such as sober living and recovery homes operating as a household unit as well as licensed group homes ·
serving six or fewer residents. Other laws provide protection for group homes, regardless of their size, if they serve certain people in
certain protected classes.
These laws prohibit discrimination based upon disability, familial status, source of income, race, low income and many other factors. In
effect, these laws prohibit targeted, restrictive regulations on group homes serving these protected classes, no matter how many people
live in the home or whether a state license is required. Such laws include the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. Section 36~the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act. •
By law, everyone has the right to choose where to live without dIscnminatIon, including 1ndIvIduals with dIsabIhtIes. lndNJdual
recovering from drug or alcohol addiction are defined as disabled under the Fair Housing Act.
It may also be a violation of the Fair Housing Act to:
• Prohibit or restrict group homes based on the belief that the residents will be members of a protected class, such as recovering
substance-abuse addicts.
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 209 of 227
Contact Request: Dear Kerry, City of Carlsbad Staff, Mayor and City Council:
I attended the Group Homes Public Meeting that was held Wednesday, January 29 from 5:30
-7:30 pm. It was an interesting meeting to discuss some differences between Licensed and
Unlicensed Group Living Arrangements.
Mostly this meeting discussed how "Group Recovery Homes" are designed by a property owner
to provide "group living a~rangements for people who are attempting to recover from a drug and
/or alcohol addictions".
I am grateful for the opportunity to explore this challenge to the quality of life created by
founders of the City of Carlsbad and us. Yes, It is an opportunity to voice concerns for this
situation and to participate in the process of dialogue to build awareness, compassion and
solutions.
At the meeting I voiced the concern of Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. I have
personal experience of working with neighbors and the City of Carlsbad to secure a property to
provide education to children aged 5-12 years. The facility was staffed with professionals with
appropriate qualifications and the site was prepared. with drives for emergency vehicles, fire
sprinklers, alarms, ADA requirements for entrance, egress and bathrooms. Several times
architects, engineers, consultants and planners presented to the City for review to assure that
there would be a quality of life for the children receiving education and the neighboring
properties. Traffic engineers and lighting experts were called upon to present. All of these
experts were compensated to guarantee the property would be used for the greater good, as
well as a location to create a livelihood for myself and staff.
It is clear that there are those who wish to create an income by providing space for persons
whose families or loved ones have experienced addictions. It is a commendable pursuit, if the
intention is to uplift the people in need and community.
At the meeting, several speakers including a former First Responder, 1lffani Czapinksi, detailed
descriptions of group homes that were dreadful and shameful to the point that the home
subjected the 'person in recovery' to abhorrent and abusive living conditions.
From the City of Carlsbad Council and Staff, citizens aqd property owners have heard that there
are laws and protections for the landlord of the Group Home to carry on with business as they
see fit ,abiding to expectations of occupancy of any household, the definition of which is that the
occupants apparently eat meals 'together'. Also, the Uniform Housing Code, was mentioned as
one method to assure standards. We understand that Americans have Constitutional Rights of
'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' which includes families who have single family residences in
a stable neighborhood.
However, most of what the City of Carlsbad Council and Staff have presented and showcased
were Codes , Ordinances and Laws which are in place to protect Group Homes for Drug and
Alcohol Addiction, several of which have been a threat to peace, safety and well-being in
residential neighborhoods. As paid experts, legal counsel and representatives of the entire
population in Carlsbad, it is imperative that professional guidance be utilized to protect the
residents in our neighborhoods. Council, the legal team and Staff must use their best skills,
insight, talents. and wisdom to maintain and protect families in grounded neighborhoods.
On Pine Avenue, there is a project at the Planning Department which is being built with the
intention of being For-Profit Group Home. The property at 1284 Pine has been placed, I believe,
in an LLC and has had a long history of building "out of character and compatibility" with the
neighborhood. My objection to having a Group Home installed on this site is: safety of elderly
who regularly walk for exercise on the street; youth who bike and skateboard; families with
children who regularly walk past the property going to school, Holiday Park, Krueger House,
either Learning Center or Cole Library, the athletic fields at Pine Park and the Scout House.
Our neighborhood is unique for the established urban forest. The owner at 1284 has left the
property bare· surrounded by plastic for many years, which shows no regard for aesthetic of this
neighborhood and the values of its Carlsbad residents.
The original Owner is a non-Carlsbad resident who has deliberately constructed multi-family
structures in this designated R-! single-family neighborhood and has never had a town meeting
to explore how to cooperate with concerned residents.
Due to concerns of the residents, the Building, Engineering and Planning Departments have been
involved to modify, yet the arrangement persists as apartments for non-related persons. Hence
accountability is a major issue nioving forward. There are other locations to put in apartments
with suitable lighting, ADA enhancements for Group Home and lighting. Basically, this developer
purchased land for a single-family house with perhaps attached or detached second dwelling
unit, yet manipulating the City of Carlsbad to have his way trying every angle to gain huge
profits. First he attempted Vacation Rentals and now Group Homes: not to enhance the
community, but exploiting the situation for his ciwn profit.
Addition.ally, many locations or establishments nearby are available for legal purchasrmo.·I
and lodging available on Pio Pico and near the freeway off Carlsbad Village Drive. In
for this location it must be maintained that the owner not build specifically for a Gro r
a Vacation Rental. Surely the City has some discretion when permitting for new canst at
does not violate the federal Fair Housing Act or Health and Safety Codes. Hopefully you can
support this point of view and assist us, as the residents of Pine Avenue have been living and
working in Olde Carlsbad for generations. We request your conscientious support to maintain
safety and decency for all the generations present on this street.
Cumulative effect is my third major concern when allowing permits to build Group Homes in a
May 12, 2020 Item #3 Page 216 of 227
Please read into the record.
May 12, 2020
RE: Recovery-Based Group Homes
Good Afternoon Mayor Hall, Council Members and Staff,
All Receive -Agenda Item # _3
For the Information of the:
~IT! COUNCIL
Date~ CA v cc /
CM __LACM_. CM (3}L
The report submitted by Jeff Murphy regarding Recovery-Based Group Homes is not
only inclusive and thorough, but encyclopedic in the challenges and restrictions any
municipality faces in addressing the issue. It is truly commendable.
Despite the legal labyrinth the report clearly exposes, immediate and viable resources
are required to address the real and growing concerns by the residents.
May I suggest the following for your consideration:
1. Substance abuse is a symptom, not the problem . The underlying issues for those
who struggle with ongoing addiction, are quite often the same as those who are
homeless .. The city has wisely created a team to address the homeless issue in our
city -including Holly Nelson and Sgt. Gary Marshall. Would it not be sensible to
utilize their services to act as the community's first contact with problems that arise
from these homes? This would utilize an existing and timely resource for
concerned residents, and would centralize any recording of incidents that might
occur. ( I recently called on Sgt. Marshall to assist a homeless young woman in
need. Not only did he already know the young woman, but made direct contact
within an hour or two ... , most impressive.)
2. Form a collaboration with the National Alliance of
Recovery Residences (NARR), the Society of Addiction Recovery
Residences (SOARR), and/or the California Consortium of Addiction
Programs and Professionals (CCAPP). These organizations are formed to insure
"sustaining accountability and certifiable standards" for residential recovery
homes. It is my understanding that included in their services are : mediation to
address community concerns, and home inspection as needed.
The challenge is daunting, but practical and immediate resources are available. Please
take action to provide the tangible support we need.
Thank you,
Martha Law-Edwards
Hector Gomez
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Thank you.
Rosemary Eshelman
Monday, May 11, 2020 4:03 PM
City Clerk
I wish to have my letter read at the council meeting
Rosemary EshelmanMay 12.docx
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
1
All Receive -Agenda Item# 3
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
DateS PJtOc.AK cc )(
CM K_ C )C_DCM (3)-K_
Rosemary Eshelman
Carlsbad 92008
Good evening Mayor, Manager, Council and Staff,
May 12, 2020
I would like to address the item on the agenda this evening relating to Sober Living Homes and
in particular the one on Camino Del Sol Circle in Carlsbad which is the street I reside on. As you
know I have been in touch with many of you over the years that this home has been in place.
I have seen this home on my residential street go from all men to all women all under the guise
of a regulated protected class of ADA group home. I have seen the flux of patients that this
home provides for not knowing who is who in our neighborhood. I have witnessed police,
ambulance and fire services many times only to be dismissed as the client seems to be ok to be
transported by the group homes services themselves. I now understand that this home will be
applying for a state license. I am not sure why now maybe there is a financial incentive to
become licensed.
My question to aU of you is if they become licensed what type of business requirements would
be granted locally and what set of rules would they be expected to follow? As of right now do
these clients actually get the help they need, is there any data that shows all of the previous
clients and where they are today?
I appreciate you adding this subject to the legislative team so that maybe something can be
done in the future for local control. If we are able to get the state to understand that there
needs to be monitoring of these homes and the clients that come and go .
. I understand the reasoning behind having sober living homes and the transition back into
society for many of the people transitioning. The thing I am asking is that we find a way to make
it work for the quality of life for everyone involved. I like knowing I have a sense of community
and connectedness.
Thank you
Rosemary
Hector Gomez
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good Afternoon,
Chris Nicholson
Monday, May 11, 2020 4:01 PM
City Clerk
Council Meeting Comments for May 12, 2020 3:00pm
All Receive -Agenda Item# "3
For the Information of th;-
COUNCIL
Da CA ~CC ~
CM _ACM 2£ DCM (3)~
Below are comments regarding the sober house agenda item that I would like to have read at the meeting on May 12,
2020. Thank you.
Good Afternoon,
I am a Carlsbad resident and have a unique perspective of having a sober house in my neighborhood. I say unique
because in my cul de sac of 9 homes, we have a sober house and a STVR so in my RESIDENTIAL neighborhood, 22% of
the residential dwellings are being used for a COMMERCIAL purpose which is absurd. We have profiteers taking over our
residential neighborhoods and jeopardizing the availability of rental housing for families to actually live in as members of
the community. The City of Carlsbad owes a duty to it's citizens to not allow what has happened to me and my neighbors
to occur anywhere else in this city. There is no sense of community being exercised by the transient population of either
of these two houses and this negatively effects the safety in our neighborhoods. The sober house is utilizing a
COMPLETELY disproportionate amount of emergency response resources and in one instance of an 11 day period in
April 2020, during a worldwide pandemic, had 2 full 911 responses. I have witnessed firsthand during a previous forum
the house operators hiding behind what they claim are ADA protections are dictating term to the City, not vice versa.
This needs to change .
I have just learned there is a pending application with California Health and Human Services for a "social rehabilitation
facility" at 1110 Camino Del Sol Circle, 92008. I am not sure what the license would allow them to do above and beyond
what they are doing now, but if this in ANY way expands their ability to even further commercialize this residential
property, and I think I speak for all of my neighbors as well, I am vehemently against it.
I have read the report to be presented this afternoon and have 2 questions. The ADA is to ensure that people with
disabilities are not treated differently than others so regulations cannot single them out. An excerpt from the report
states "State law does not view SLHs as a home-based business even though profit may be incurred by the
owner/operator. Due to the constraints of state and federal law, cities cannot create or interpret existing business
licensing regulations to apply to RGHs strictly on this basis." I could not find any state or federal cited to this effect in the
report? Additionally if these houses are operating as STVRs (rentals of less than 30 days) why are they not subject to the
rules and requirements than anyone else would be? I once again could not find any federal or state laws cited to that
effect?
It appears the city's intention is to remain on the sidelines until all of the other cities in California have exhausted all
appeals before doing anything on the issue? That seems like it could take decades and the sober house operators will
keep multiplying and exacerbating the lack of affordable housing availability, stressing our emergency services
capabilities and doing it on the backs of the disabled.
Ch ris Ni cholson
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA --HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
744 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 657-2586
COSS MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06
PETE WILSON,
Regulation Package #0696-27
TO: HOLDERS OF COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING MANUAL, TITLE 22, DIVISION 6, CHAPTER 2,
SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
Regulation Package #0696-27 Effective 10/1/98
Sections 81065, 81065.5, 81065.6, 81068.2, and 81087
Assembly Bill (AB) 2835, Chapter 517, Statutes of 1996, required the Department to implement regulations
to specify those medical services that may be provided in adult CCFs, under what circumstances they may
be allowed, and the medical conditions that are not allowed in an adult CCF. Prior to this, there were no
regulations to address incidental medical services.
These regulations implement the following changes: 1) new sections are adopted to set forth the staffing
requirements in Social Rehabilitation Facilities, 2) the needs and services plan section is amended to provide
consistency throughout the regulations, and 3) language was relocated and amended to place subject matter
in a more logical format for clarity and ease of use.
These regulations were originally adopted on an emergency basis and became effective February 1, 1997.
Since that time public hearings were held and changes were made to the regulations. This package
represents the final regulations which became effective October 1, 1998.
These regulations were considered at the Department's public hearings held on March 24 through 28, 1997.
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
Revisions to all manuals will now be shown in graphic screen. The attached pages are to be entered
in your copy of the Manual of Policies and Procedures. The latest prior manual letter containing Community
Care Licensing changes was Manual Letter No. CCL-98-05. The latest prior manual letter containing Social
Rehabilitation Facilities changes was Manual Letter No. CCL-97-03.
Please replace your entire manual with the attached pages.
#
Attachments
RG
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE 22, DIVISION 6
CHAPTER 2 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
Article 1. General Requirements and Definitions
Section
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81000
Definitions............................................................................................................................................. 81001
Article 2. Licensing
Posting of License.................................................................................................................................. 81009
Limitations on Capacity and Ambulatory Status................................................................................. 81010
Article 3. Applications Procedures
Application for License......................................................................................................................... 81018
Plan of Operation ................................................................................................................................. 81022
Waivers and Exceptions........................................................................................................................ 81024
Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-91-42, effective 9/9/91............................................................ 81027
Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-91-42, effective 9/9/91............................................................ 81031
Article 4. Administrative Actions
Revocation or Suspension of License................................................................................................... 81042
Article 5. Enforcement Provisions (Reserved)
Serious Deficiencies (Reserved) ................................................ ........... ........... ............................. ......... 81051
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-42 Effective 9/9/91
SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Article 6. Continuing Requirements
Section
Basic Services......................................................................................................................................... 81060
Reporting Requirements ...... -..................... _............................................................................................ 81061
Administrator Qualifications and Duties ................................................................................. ,........... 81064
Program Director Qualifications and Duties....................................................................................... 81064.1
Personnel Requirements....................................................................................................................... 81065
Day Staff-Client Ratio ........................................................................................................................... 81065.5
Night Supervision................................................................................................................................. 81065.6
Personnel Records................................................................................................................................. 81066
Admission Agreements ..................................................................................................... -.................... 81068
Admission Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 81068.1
Needs and Services Plan........................................................................................................................ 81068.2
Modifications to Needs and Services Plan........................................................................................... 81068.3
Acceptance and Retention Limitations................................................................................................ 81068.4
Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-97-03, effective 2/1/97 ............................................................ 81068.5
Client Medical Assessments.................................................................................................................. 81069
Client Records .................................................................................................. :.................................... 81070
Personal Rights...................................................................................................................................... 81072
CALIFORNIADSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
Health-Related Services......................................................................................................................... 81075
Food Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 7 6
Responsibility for Providing Care and Supervision............................................................................. 81078
Activities................................................................................................................................................ 81079
Resident Councils................................................................................................................................. 81080
Article 7. Physical Environment
Buildings and Grounds......................................................................................................................... 81087
Outdoor Activity Space......................................................................................................................... 8108 7. 2
Indoor Activity Space............................................................................................................................ 81087.3
Fixtures, Furniture, Equipment, and Supplies..................................................................................... 81088
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL98-06 Effective 10/1/98
SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
This Users' Manual is issued as an operational tool.
This Manual contains:
(a) Regulations adopted by the Department of Social Services (DSS) for the governance of its agents,
licensees, and/ or beneficiaries
(b) Regulations adopted by other State Departments affecting DSS programs
(c) Statutes from appropriate Codes which govern DSS programs
(d) Court decisions and
(e) Operational standards by which DSS staff will evaluate performance within DSS programs
Regulations of DSS are printed in gothic type as in this sentence.
Handbook material, which includes reprinted statutory material, other department's regulations and examples,
is separated from the regulations by double lines and the phrases "HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE",
"HANDBOOK CONTINUES", and "HANDBOOK ENDS HERE" in bold print.
In addition, please note that as a result of the changes to a new computer system revised language in this manual
letter and subsequent community care licensing manual letters will now be identified by graphic screen.
Questions relative to this Users' Manual should be directed to your usual program policy office.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL97-03 Effective 2/1/97
Page 4
Regulations
81000
SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
CHAPTER 2. SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
Article 1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS
GENERAL
81001 (Cont.)
81000
(a) Social Rehabilitation Facilities, as defined in Section 8000 ls.Q), shall be governed by the provisions
specified in this chapter and in Chapter 1, General Licensing Requirements.
(b) In addition to (a) above, Social Rehabilitation Facilities shall be governed by those provisions specified
in Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Sections 531 through 535 of the California Code of Regulations.
(c) California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 2 shall not be in effect until California
Code of Regulations, Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Sections 531 through 535 are in effect.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501, and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81001 DEFINITIONS 81001
In addition to Section 80001, the following shall apply:
a. (Reserved)
b. (Reserved)
£,. (1) "Certified" means a Social Rehabilitation program that has been certified by the Department of
Mental Health as meeting the standards established for that program.
d. W "Direct-Care Staff" means those persons who deliver direct care and supervision to the clients.
~ W "Evict" or "eviction" means an involuntary relocation or removal of a client from the facility by the
licensee.
f. (Reserved)
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-27 Effective 5/28/91
81001 (Cont.) SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81001
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
DEFINITIONS (Continued)
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
81001
L. (l) "Long-Term Residential Treatment Program" means a program as defined in Welfare and
Institutions Code, Section 5458(b).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(A) Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5458(b) provides:
"A long-term residential treatment program, with a full day treatment component as a part
of the program, for persons who may require intensive support for as long as two or three
years. TI1is program shall be designed to provide a rehabilitation program for the so-called
"chronic" patient who needs long-term support in order to develop independent living
skills.
The clients in this program are to be those who would otherwise be living marginally in
the community with little or no service support and who would return many times to the
hospital for treatment. It also is to serve those who are referred to, and maintained in
state hospitals or nursing homes because they require long-term, intensive support. This
program is to go beyond maintenance to provide an active rehabilitation focus for these
individuals.
The services in this program shall include, but not limited to, intensive diagnostic work,
including learning disability assessment, full day treatment program with an active
prevocational and vocational component, special education services, outreach to develop
linkages with the general social service system, and counseling to aid clients in developing
the skills to move toward a less structured setting."
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-27 Effective 5/28/91
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81001 (Cont.)
81001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 81001
m. (D "Mental Illness" means the mental condition of any adult who has been evaluated and referred for
treatment for a mental disorder, as defined in Section 8000lm.(D.
n. (D "Needs and Services Plan" means a time-limited, goal oriented, written plan which identifies the
specific needs of an individual client, including the items specified in Section 81068.2, and
delineates those services necessary to meet the client's needs.
o. (D "On-Call Staff'' means a staff person who is not on duty on the facility premises, but who can be
contacted by the facility if an additional staff person is needed, and can be at the facility and on
duty within 30 minutes.
11,. (D "Program Director" means the person who has been designated the authority and responsibility by
the licensee to oversee and carry out the overall treatment program and management of the facility.
q.
r.
Q) "Program Type" means the type of program as defined in Sections 810011.(D, tlD. and ull that
may be provided by a social rehabilitation facility.
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
§..,, (D "Short-Term Crisis Residential Program" means a program type as defined in Welfare and
Institutions Code, Section 5458(a).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(A) Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5458(a) provides:
"A program for a short-term crisis residential alternative to hospitalization for individuals
experiencing an acute episode or crisis requiring temporary removal from their home
environment. The program shall be available for admissions 24 hours a day, seven days
a week. The primary focus of this program shall be on reduction of the crisis, on
stabilization, and on a diagnostic assessment of the person's existing support system,
including recommendations for referrals upon discharge.
HANDBOOK CONTINUES
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-27 Effective 5/28/91
Page 7
I
81001 (Cont.) SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 81001
HANDBOOK CONTINUES
The services in the program shall include, but not be limited to, provision for direct family
work, connections to prevocational and vocational programs, and development of a
support system, including income and treatment referrals. This program shall be designed
for persons who would otherwise be referred to an inpatient unit, either locally or in the
state hospital. This program shall place emphasis on stabilization and appropriate referral
for further treatment or support services, or both."
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
a) "Social Rehabilitation Facility" means any facility which provides 24-hour a day nonmedical care
and supervision in a group setting to adults recovering from mental illness who temporarily need
assistance, guidance, or counseling.
t. W "Transitional Residential Program" means a program type as defined in the Welfar~ and Institutions
Code, Section 5458(c).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(A) Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5458(c) provides:
"A transitional residential program designed for persons who are able to take part in
programs in the general community, but who, without the support of counseling, as well
as the therapeutic community, would be at risk of returning to the hospital. This program
may employ a variety of staffing patterns and is for persons who may be expected to move
toward a more independent living setting within approximately three months to one year.
The clients shall be expected to play a major role in the functioning of the household,
and shall be encouraged to accept increasing levels of responsibility, both in the residential
community, and in the community as a whole. Residents are required to be involved in
daytime activities outside of the house which are relevant to their personal goals and
conducive to their achieving more self-sufficiency.
HANDBOOK CONTINUES
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL91-27 Effective 5/28/91
Page 8
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81001
81001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 81001
u.
v.
w.
x.
y.
z.
HANDBOOK CONTINUES
The services in this program include, but are not limited to, counseling and ongoing
assessment, development of support systems in the community, a day program which
encourages interaction between clients and the community-at-large, and an activity
program that encourages socialization and utilization. of general community resources."
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(l) "Treatment Program" means the services that are to be provided to the clients and are specific to
the program type(s) certified by the Department of Mental Health.
Q) "Treatment/Rehabilitation Plan" means a plan as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title
9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Section 532.Z(c).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
Refer to Section 81068. 2(a)(3) for the definition of Treatment/Rehabilitation Plan.
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-27 Effective 5/28/91
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81010
Article 2. LICENSING
81009 POSTING OF LICENSE 81009
(a) The license shall be posted in a prominent, publicly accessible location in the facility.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81010 LIMITATIONS ON CAPACITY AND AMBULATORY STATUS 81010
(a) In addition to Section 80010, the following shall apply:
(b) The total capacity of all program types certified for one facility shall not exceed the total licensed capacity
of the facility.
(c) The total licensed capacity of a Social Rehabilitation Facility shall not exceed 15, except as provided in
(d) below.
(d) A facility licensed as an Adult Residential Facility prior to the effective date of these regulations shall be
allowed to apply for a Social Rehabilitation Facility license, at the same location, with a capacity equal
to or less than that for which the facility is currently licensed.
(1) The licensing agency shall not deny an application solely because the requested capacity exceeds
15.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL91-09 Issued 2/2/91
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81018
Article 3. APPLICATIONS PROCEDURES
8.1018 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE 81018
(a) In addition to Section 80018, the following shall apply:
(b) Each applicant shall submit to the Department an itemized financial plan of operation. The financial
plan of operation shall consist of a financial statement listing the applicant's assets and liabilities and an
anticipated budget, including operating income and costs.
(1) Liquid assets shall be available for start up funds sufficient to cover the first three months operating
costs of the facility.
(A) The value of an existing contract with a County Mental Health Agency shall be included
. as a liquid asset.
(c) The licensing agency shall have the authority to require written verification of the availability of the funds
required in subsection (b)(l) above.
(d) Prior to licensure each applicant shall submit to the licensing agency evidence of current program
certification, which shall be signed by an authorized representative of the Department of Mental Health.
(1) The certification document shall contain the following:
(A) Facility name and address;
(B) Program type(s);
(C) Capacity for each program type;
(D) Staff positions and qualifications;
(E) Staffing pattern and ratio; and
(F) Certification effective/ expiration date.
(2) The facility shall notify the Department of Mental Health of any changes pertaining to Section
81018(d)(l).
(A) The licensee shall keep written evidence on file at the facility that the Department of
Mental Health has received the notification.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-09 Issued 2/2/91
Page 11
81022 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81022 PLAN OF OPERATION 81022
(a) In addition to Section 80022, the plan of operation shall include:
(1) A statement that specifies the maximum length of treatment for the clients, which shall not exceed
18 months.
(2) Written evidence of arrangements for any consultants and community resources which are to be
utilized in the facility's plan of operation or to meet regulatory requirements.
(3) Provisions for ensuring that food service requirements (Sections 80076 and 81076) and building
and grounds requirements (Sections 80087 and 81087) shall continue to be met when the clients
are unable or unwilling to perform these functions as a part of their treatment plans.
(4) A written plan for the supervision and training of staff as required by Section 81065(f).
(5) A written staff continuing education plan which meets the requirements of Section 81065(g).
(6) A written plan for managing client psychiatric crises, including procedures for facility staff
intervention and for securing assistance from local psychiatric emergency response agencies.
(7) A current, valid program certification by the Department of Mental health.
(A) The certification document shall contain the information required in Section 81018.
(b) In addition to Subsection (a) above, any facility with a certified Long-Term Residential Treatment
Program shall submit the following information to the licensing agency:
(1) The treatment program which shall include those services specified in Section 810011(1).
(c) In addition to Subsection (a) above, any facility with a certified ShortT erm Crisis Residential Program
shall submit the following information to the licensing agency:
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-27 Effective 5/28/91
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81024
81022 PLAN OF OPERATION (Continued) 81022
(1) TI1.e treatment program which shall include those services specified in Section 81001s.(1).
(d) In addition to Subsection (a) above, any facility with a certified Transitional Residential Program shall
submit the following information to the licensing agency:
(1) The treatment program which shall include those services specified in Section 81001t.(1).
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81024 . WAIVERS AND EXCEPTIONS 81024
(a) In addition to Section 80024, the following shall apply:
(b) TI1.e Department shall notify the Department of Mental Health of all ,,;,,aiver and exception requests.
(1) A copy of the approval or denial shall be sent to the Department of Mental Health.
(c) Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-91-42, effective 9 /9 /91.
(d) Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-91-42, effective 9/9/91.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code; and Section 153 7 6, Government
Code.
CALIFORNIA-PSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-42 Effective 9/7/91
81027 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81027 INITIAL APPLICATION REVIEW 81027
Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-91-42, effective 9/9/91.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Section 1520.3, Health and Safety
Codei and Section 15376, Government Code.
81031 ISSUANCE OF LICENSE 81031
Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-91-42, effective 9/9/91.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Section 15376, Government
Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL91-42 Effective 9/7/91
Regulations
81042
SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
Article 4. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENSE
(a) In addition to Section 8004 2, the following shall apply:
81042
81042
(b) The Department shall initiate revocation action against the license of a Social Rehabilitation Facility when
it is found that the program certification has been withdrawn by the Department of Mental Health.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-09 Issued 2/2/91
Page 15
Regulations
81051
SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
Article 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS (Reserved)
SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES (Reserved) 81051
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
81051
(a) In addition to Section 80051, the following are examples of regulations which, if not complied with,
nearly always result in a serious deficiency.
(1) Sections 81068.4(a)(l) and (2) and Section 81075(c) relating to persons with communicable
diseases and persons requiring inpatient health care.
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Section 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-91-09 Issued 2/2/91
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81060
81060
Article 6. CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS
BASIC SERVICES
(a) For SSI/SSP recipients who are residents, the basic services shall be provided and/or made available at
the basic rate with no additional charge to the resident.
(1) This shall not preclude the acceptance by the facility of voluntaiy contributions from relatives or
others on behalf of an SSI/SSP recipient.
(A)
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
The Social Security Administration has interpreted Federal Regulations (20 CFR
416.1102, 416.1103, and 416.1145) to mean that any contribution given directly to the
facility on behalf of an SSI/SSP recipient will not count as income (i.e., will not reduce
the recipient's SSI/SSP check) if the payment is used for items other than food, clothing
or shelter (e.g., care and supervision).
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(2) An extra charge to the resident shall be allowed for a private room if a double room is made
available but the resident prefers a private.room, provided the arrangement is documented in the
admissions agreement and the charge is limited to 10% of the Board and Room portion of the
SSI/SSP grant.
(3) An extra charge to the resident shall be allowed for provision of special food services or products
beyond that specified in Section 80076(a)(2) and (a)(4) when the resident wishes to purchase the
setvices and agrees to the extra charge in the admissions agreement.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7) and
Section 12350, Welfare and Institutions Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL96-04 Effective 4/19/96
81061 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81061 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 81061
(a) In addition to Section 80061, the following shall apply:
(b) The licensee shall notify the licensing agency, in writing, within 10 working days of a change of
administrator or program director. Such notification shall include the following:
(1) Name, residence and mailing address of the new administrator/program director.
(2) Date he/she assumed his/her position.
(3) Description of his/her background and qualifications, including documentation of required
education and related experience.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81064 ADMINISTRATOR QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES 81064
(a) In addition to Section 80064, the following shall apply:
(b) All Social Rehabilitation Facilities shall have an administrator.
(c) The administrator shall have the following qualifications prior to employment:
(1) One year of full-time work experience in a management or administrative position and,
(2) Completion, with a passing grade, of 15 college or continuing education semester or equivalent
quarter units, of which 9 units which shall be in administration and/ or management.
(A) Three years of full-time work experience in a management or administrative position may
be substituted to meet the requirement of (2) above.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81064
81064 ADMINISTRATOR QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES (Continued) 81064
(d) The administrator of the facility shall be responsible for the following:
(1) Communication with the licensee concerning the administrative operations of the facility.
(2) Development of an administrative plan and procedures to define lines of responsibility, workloads,
and staff supervision.
(3) Recruitment, employment, and training of qualified staff, and termination of staff.
(e) Any person designated as an administrator shall be required to complete at least 20-clock-hours of
continuing education per year in areas relating to mental health and the care of the mentally ill, and/ or
administration.
(f) Persons employed as the administrator in an Adult Residential Facility serving clients who meet the
definition of "mental illness" as contained in Section 81001 m. ( 1) as of the effective date of this section,
shall not be required to meet the education/ experience requirements specified in (c) above.
(g) If the administrator is also the program director, he/she shall also meet the requirements of the program
director set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Sections 532.6(f),
(g), and (i).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(1) Refer to Section 81064. l(d)(l) for qualifications of a director.
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(;:i.)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
81064.1 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81064.1 PROGRAM DIRECTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES 81064.1
(a) All Social Rehabilitation Facilities shall have a program director.
(b) The program director shall he on the premises the number of hours necessary to manage and administer
the treatment program of the facility in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Title 9,
Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Sections 531 through 535 and Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 2, Sections
810011.(1), s.(1) and t.(1).
(c) When the program director is temporarily absent from the facility, there shall be coverage by a substitute
program director designated in writing by the licensee.
(1) lftl1.e absence is for more than 14 consecutive calendar days, excluding emergency leave, sick leave
or vacation of the program director, the designated substitute shall meet the qualifications of a
program director set forth by the Department of Mental Health.
(d) The program director shall meet the minimum qualifications set forth in California Code of Regulations,
Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Sections 532.6(f), (g), and (i).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(1) Title 9, California Code of Regulations, Sections 532.6(f), (g), and (i) provide in part:
The program director of a certified Short-Term Crisis Residential Treatment Program shall have
a bachelor's degree in psychology, social work or any other major which includes at least 24
semester college units in one or more of the following subject areas: psychology, social work,
sociology, behavioral sciences, psychiatric nursing, and two years of full-time work experience in
a community program that serves clients who have a mental illness. Such experience must be in
direct provision of services to clients, of which one year must be supervising direct care staff. Four
years of experience, one of which must be supervising direct care staff, and graduation from high
school or possession of a GED may be substituted for the education/ experience requirements.
HANDBOOK CONTINUES
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Page 20
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81064.1 (Cont.)
81064.1 PROGRAM DIRECTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES (Continued) 81064.1
HANDBOOK CONTINUES
The program director of a certified Transitional or Long-Term Residential Treatment Program
shall have a bachelor's degree in psychology, social work or any other major which includes at least
24 semester college units in one or more of the following subject areas: psychology, social work,
sociology, behavioral sciences, psychiatric nursing, and one year full-time work experience in a
community program that serves clients who have a mental illness. Such experience must be in
direct provision of services to clients, of which four months must be supervising direct care staff.
Three years of experience of which six months must be supervising direct care staff and graduation
from high school or possession of a GED may be substituted for the education/ experience
requirements.
Program directors of social rehabilitation programs as of the date that this section is adopted shall
be considered as meeting all the requirements of this section until two (2) years after the effective
date of this section, at which time the requirements of this section must be met in full.
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(e) The program director shall ensure the following:
(1) Communication with the licensee concerning the operation of the facility.
(2) Provision of the services identified in each client's individual needs and services plan or required
by California Code of Regulations, Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Sections 531 through 535
or Title 22, Division 6, Chapters 1 and 2.
(3) Arrangements for clients to attend available community programs, when clients have needs,
identified in the needs and services plan, which cannot be met by the facility but can be met by
community programs.
(A) Such arrangements shall include, but not be limited to, arranging for transportation.
(1) This requirement does not exempt the licensee from providing transportation
when public transportation is not practical or when the client is unable to use
public transit.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL98-06 Effective 10/1/98
81064.1 (Cont.) SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81064.1 PROGRAM DIRECTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES (Continued) 81064.1
(4) Arrangements for special provision of services to clients with disabilities including visual and
auditory deficiencies.
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(A) Such provisions may include additional staff, safety and emergency information printed
in braille, and lights to alert the deaf to emergencies.
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(5) Development of an employee work schedule as required in Section 81066(b).
(6) Provision of staff support to clients in the planning, preparing, and serving,of meals.
(A) If clients are unable to plan, prepare, and serve meals, the program director shall initiate
and carry out the program plan pursuant to Section 81022(a)(3) to ensure the
requirements of Sections 8007 6 and 8107 6 are met.
(7) Provision of staff support to clients in performing facility maintenance and/ or cleaning activities
as designated in the client's treatment/rehabilitation plan.
(A) If clients are unable to perform facility maintenance and/ or cleaning activities, the
program director shall initiate and carry out the plan developed pursuant to Section
81022(a)(3) to ensure the requirements of Section 80087(a) are met.
(f) Any person designated as a program director shall be required to complete at least 20-clock-hours of
continuing education per year in areas relating to mental health and the care of the mentally ill, and/ or
administration. '
(g) If the program director is also the administrator, he/she shall also meet the requirements of the
administrator set forth in Section 81064(c).
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effectived 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81065 (Cont.)
81065 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS 81065
(a) In addition to Section 80065, the following shall apply:
(b) All direct care staff shall meet the minimum qualifications as set forth in California Code of Regulations,
Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Sections 532.6(h) and (i).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(1) Title 9, California Code of Regulations, Sections 532.6(h) and (i) provide:
(h) "All direct care staff shall have graduated from high school or possess a GED and have a
minimum of one (1) year of full-time experience, or its part-time equivalent, working in
a program serving persons with mental disabilities. Such experience shall be in direct
services to clients. If the employee does not have the required experience, the program
shall document a specific plan of supervision and in-service training for the employee
which will guarantee the ongoing qualification of the employee to perform the job. The
plan should include but not be limited to the frequency and number of hours of training,
the subjects to be covered, and a description of the supervision to be provided."
(i) "Program directors and all direct care staff of social rehabilitation programs as of the date
that this section is adopted shall be considered as meeting all the requirements of this
section until two (2) years after the effective date of this section, at which time the
requirements of this section must be met in full."
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
W The licensee shall hire support staff as necessary to perform office work, and maintenance of buildings,
equipment, and grounds.
(d) The licensee shall ensure that a direct service to a client shall be provided by a person with the I
appropriate license or certificate when required by law.
W The licensee shall develop, maintain, and implement a written plan for the orientation, continuing
education, on-the-job training, supervision, and evaluation of all direct care staff.
(£) All direct care staff shall receive a minimum of 20-clock-hours of continuing education per year, which
shall provide the staff with the knowledge and skills as appropriate to their job assignment.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Page 23
81065 (Cont.) SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81065 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) 81065
(1) The continuing education may include such topics as the following:
(A) Basic knowledge of mental disorders;
(B) Counseling skills, including individual, group, vocational and job counseling skills;
(C) Crisis management;
(D) Development and updating of needs and services plan;
(E) Discharge planning;
(F) Medications, including possible side effects and signs of overmedicating;
(G) Knowledge of community services and resources; and
(H) Principles of good nutrition, proper food preparation and storage, and menu planning.
(2) The licensee shall document the number of hours of continuing education completed each year
by direct care staff.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501, 1502(a)(7), 1507 and 1562 Health and Safety Code.
81065.5 DAY STAFF-CLIENT RATIO 81065.5
(a) A licensee shall ensure that sufficient direct care staff are at the facility whenever clients are present.
(1) TI1ere shall be at least one direct care staff person on duty, on the premises, any time clients are
in the fac ility.
(A) Any time there is only one direct care staff person on duty on the premises, another direct
care staff person shall be on call and capable of responding within 30 minutes.
(2) Short Term Crisis Residential Programs sh all have at least two direct care staff persons on duty,
on the premises , any time clients are in the facility.
CALIFORNIADSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81065.6
81065.5 DAY STAFF-CLIENT RATIO 81065.5
(Continued)
(3) All facilities shall employ staff and have staffing patterns and ratios as indicated on the facility
certification document.
(A) The facility shall notifv the Department of Mental Health when staff qualifications,
positions or staffing patterns change.
(b) Whenever a client who relies upon others to perform all activities of daily living is present, the following
minimum staffing requirements shall be met:
(1) For Regional Center clients, staffing shall be maintained as specified by the Regional Center, but
no less than one direct care staff to three such clients.
(2) For all other clients. there shall be a staff-client ratio of no less than one direct care staff to three
such clients.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code, and Sections 1501, 1502(a)(7), 1507 and 1562, Health and Safety Code.
81065.6 NIGHT SUPERVISION 81065.6 I
(a) In addition to Section 81065.5(a), the following shall apply.
(b) In facilities providin!2' care to seven or more clients who rely upon others to perform all activities of daily
living, there shall be at least one person on duty, on the premises and awake.
(1) For every additional 14 such clients. there shall be one additional person on duty. on the .premises
and a~ake.
(c) In facilities providing care to Regional Center clients who rely upon others to perform all activities of
daily living. night supervision shall be maintained as required by the Regional Center, but no less than
specified in (b) and (b)(l) above.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 1530. Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code. and Sections 1501, 1502(a)(7). 1507 and 1562. Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
81066 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81066 PERSONNEL RECORDS 81066
(a) In addition to Section 80066, the following shall apply:
(b) An employee work schedule shall be developed at least monthly, shall be displayed conveniently for
employee reference, and shall contain the following information for each employee:
(1) Name;
(2) Job title;
(3) Dates, days and hours of work; and
(4) Days off.
(c) Staff training as required by Section 81065(g) shall be documented. Documentation shall include the
subject of tl1e training, who conducted the training, and the date(s) of the training.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81068 ADMISSION AGREEMENTS 81068
(a) In addition to Section 80068, the following shall apply:
(b) The admission agreement shall specify the following:
(1) Facility policies which are intended to ensure that no client, in the exercise of his/her personal
rights, infringes upon the personal rights of any otl1er client.
(2) Those actions, circumstances, or conditions which may result in the client's eviction from the
facility as specified in Section 81068.5.
(3) An indication whether the client is either receiving or eligible for Short/Doyle payments pursuant
to Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5700 through 5750.
· NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453, 5458, and 5713.1,
Welfare and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1507(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81068.1
81068.1 ADMISSION PROCEDURE 81068.1
(a) The licensee shall develop, maintain, and implement admission procedures which shall meet the
requirements specified in this section.
(b) No client shall be admitted prior to a determination of the facility's ability to meet the needs of the client,
which shall include an appraisal of his/her individual service needs as specified in Section 81068.2.
(c) Prior to accepting a client for treatment, the program director or an experienced staff person who has
received training in developing a needs and services plan shall: '
(1) Interview the prospective client, and his/her authorized representative, if any.
(A) The interview shall provide the prospective client with information about the facility,
including the information contained in the Admission Agreement and any additional
policies and procedures, house rules, and activities.
(2) Obtain and review documents as specified in Sections 81068.2(a)(l) and (2).
(A) This information may not be readily available for clients accepted in a short-term
residential crisis program. If this information is not available at the time of admission, this
fact must be documented in the client's file. This information must be obtained within
three days of admission to the program.
(d) The facility shall obtain the medical assessment, performed as specified in Section 80069.
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(1) See Section 81069 for requirement exceptions.
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(e) If terms of admission are mutually agreeable, the facility shall obtain the signature of the client, or
his/her authorized representative, if any, on the Admission Agreement.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Page 27
81068.2 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81068.2 NEEDS AND SERVICES PLAN 81068.2
(a) Prior to admission, the licensee shall determine whether the facility's program can meet the prospective
client's service needs.
(b) If the client is to be admitted, then prior to admission, the licensee shall complete a written Needs and
.Services f lan, that must include:
(1) A written assessment as required in California Code of Regulations, Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article
3.5, Section 532.2(b).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(A) Title 9, California Code of Regulations, Section 532.2(b) provides:
"There shall be a written assessment of each client on admission which includes at least:
(1) Health and psychiatric histories;
(2) Psycho-social skills;
(3} Social support skills;
(4) Current psychological, educational, vocational, and other functional limitations;
(5) Medical needs, as reported; and
(6) Meal planning, shopping, and budgeting skills."
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(2) Any needs appraisal or individual program plan completed by a placement agency or consultant.
(3) A written treatment/rehabilitation plan as required by California Code of Regulations, Title 9,
Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Section 532.2(c).
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
81068.2 NEEDS AND SERVICES PLAN
(Continued)
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(A) Title 9, California Code of Regulations, Section 532.2(c) provides:
81068.2
81068.2
The program and client shall together develop a written treatment/rehabilitation plan
specifying goals and objectives and the staff and client's responsibilities for their
achievement. Clients shall be involved in an ongoing review of progress towards reaching
established goals and be involved in the planning and evaluation of tl1eir treatment goals.
The plan shall contain at least the following elements:
(1) Statement of specific treatment needs and goals.
(2) Description of specific services to address identified treatment needs.
(3) Documentation of reviews by staff and client of the treatment/rehabilitation plan
adhering to the following schedule:
(A) Short-Term Crisis Residential Treatment Program: at least weekly.
(B) Transitional Residential Treatment Program: at least once every 30 days.
(C) Long-Term Residential Treatment Program: at least once every 60 days.
(4) Anticipated length of stay needed to accomplish identified goals, and methods to
evaluate the achievement of these goals.
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(4) If the client has a restricted health condition, as specified in Section 80092, a written Restricted
Health C ondition Care Plan as specified in Section 80092. 2.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501, 1502(a)(7), and 1507, Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Page 29
81068.3 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81068.3 MODIFICATIONS TO NEEDS AND SERVICES PLAN 81068.3
(a) The program director or an experienced staff person who has been trained in the development and
modification of a needs and services plan shall, with the client's participation, update the needs and
services plan specified in Section 81068.2.
(b) The program director or staff person specified in (a) above shall, with the client's participation, review
the treatment/rehabilitation plan according to the schedule set forth in California Code of Regulations,
Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Section 532.2(c)(3).
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(1) California Code of Regulations, Title 9, Subchapter 3, Article 3.5, Section 532.2(c)(3) provides in
part:
Reviews by staff and client of the treatment/ rehabilitation plan adhering to the following
schedule:
Short-Term Crisis Residential Treatment Program: at least weekly.
Transitional Residential Treatment Program: at least once every 30 days.
Long-Term Residential Treatment Program: at least once every 60 days.
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
(c) The program director shall ensure that the updated needs and services plan includes documentation of
all changes in the client's physical, mental, emotional, and social functioning.
(1) The program director shall ensure that all changes are considered when modifying the needs and
services plan.
(2) The program director shall ensure that all changes are brought to the attention of the client's
physician, mental health professional, or authorized representative, if any.
(d) If modifications to the plan identify an individual client need which is not being met by the program of
services, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The program director shall secure consultation from a dietitian, physician, social worker,
psychologist, or other consultant as necessary to assist in determining _if such needs can be met by
the facility within the facility's program of services.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
81068.3 MODIFICATIONS TO NEEDS AND SERVICES PLAN
(Continued)
81068.4
81068.3
(2) If it is determined that the needs can be met, the program director, in conjunction with the
consultant, shall develop and maintain in the facility a written services plan which shall include
the following:
(A) Objectives, within a time frame, which relate to the client's problems and/ or needs;
(B) Plans for meeting the objectives;
(C) Identification of any individuals or agencies responsible for implementing and evaluating
each part of the plan; and
(D) Method of evaluating progress.
(3) If it is determined that the needs cannot be met, the licensee shall bring this fact to the attention
of the client and/ or his/her authorized representative or mental health professional, if any, and
request that the client relocate.
(A) If the client refuses to relocate, the licensee shall be permitted to evict the client in
accordance with Section 81068.5.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81068.4 ACCEPTANCE AND RETENTION LIMITATIONS 81068.4
(a) The licensee shall not accept or retain the following:
(1) Persons with prohibited health conditions specified in Section 80091.
(2) Persons who require inpatient care in a health facility.
(3) Persons who have needs which are in conflict with other clients or the program of services offered.
(4) Persons who require more care and supervision than is provided by the facility.
(b) A client's length of stay shall not exceed 18 months.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501, 1507, and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Page 31
81068.5 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81068.5 EVICTION PROCEDURES 81068.5
Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-97-03, effective 2/1/97.
81069 CLIENTMEDICALASSESSMENTS 81069
(a) Notwithstanding Section 80069(a), the licensee must obtain a medical assessment prior to or within 3
days following acceptance of a client into a short-term crisis program.
(1) Assessments completed by a referring medical or mental health agency may be accepted by the
facility; however, the licensee must ensure all information required in Section 80069(b) is either
contained in the assessment or is obtained by the licensee within three days following acceptance
of a client.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81070 CLIENT RECORDS 81070
(a) In addition to Section 80070, the following shall apply.
(b) Each client record shall contain the following information:
(1) Last known address.
(2) Religious preference, and name and address of clergyman or religious advisor, if any.
(3) Needs and services plan and any modifications thereto, as specified in Sections 81068.2 and
81068.3.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81072
81072 PERSONAL RIGHTS 81072
(a) In addition to Section 80072, the following shall apply:
(b) The licensee shall insure that each client is accorded the following personal rights:
(1) To visit the facility with his/her relatives, mental health professional or authorized representative
prior to admission.
(2) To have the facility inform his/her relative, mental health professional, or authorized
representative, if any, of activities related to his/her care and supervision, including but not limited
to no~ification of any modifications to the needs and services plan.
(A) This may only be done with prior written permission from the client.
(3) To have communications to the facility from his/her relatives, mental health professional, or
authorized representative answered promptly and completely.
(4) To have visitors, including advocacy representatives, visit privately during waking hours, provided
that such visitations do not infringe upon the rights of other clients.
(5) To wear his/her own clothes.
(6) To possess and use his/her own personal items, including his/her own toilet articles.
(7) To possess and control his/her own cash resources.
(8) To have access to individual storage space for his/her private use.
(9) To have access to telephones in order to make and receive confidential calls, provided that such
calls do not infringe upon the rights of other clients and do not restrict availability of the telephone
during emergencies.
(A) The licensee shall be permitted to require reimbursement from the client or his/her
authorized representative for long distance calls.
(B) The licensee shall be permitted to prohibit the making of long distance calls upon
documentation that requested reimbursement for previous calls has not been received.
(10) To mail and receive unopened correspondence.
(11) To receive assistance in exercising the right to vote.
(12) To move from the facility.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Healtl1 and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
81075 SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81075 HEALTH-REIATED SERVICES 81075
(a) In addition to Section 80075, the following shall apply:
(b) The facility administrator shall ensure the development and implementation of a plan which insures
assistance is provided to the clients in meeting their medical and dental needs.
(c) The facility administrator shall ensure the isolation of a client suspected of having a contagious or
infectious disease and shall ensure that a physician is contacted to determine suitability of the client's
retention in the facility.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81076 FOOD SERVICE 81076
(a) In addition to Section 80076, the following shall apply:
(b) The following requirements shall be met when serving food:
(1) Meals served on the premises shall be served in one or more dining rooms or similar areas in which
the furniture, fixtures, and equipment necessary for meal service are provided.
(A) Such dining areas shall be located near the kitchen so that food may be served quickly and
easily.
(2) Tray service shall be provided in case of emergency need.
(c) The licensee shall meet the following storage requirements:
(1) Supplies of staple nonperishable foods for a minimum of one week and fresh perishable foods for .
a minimum of two days shall be maintained on the premises.
CALIFORNlA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81079 (Cont.)
81076 FOOD SERVICE (Continued) 81076
(2) Freezers shall be large enough to accommodate required perishables and shall be maintained at a
temperature of zero degrees F ( -1 7. 7 degrees C).
(3) Refrigerators shall be large enough to accommodate required perishables and shall maintain a
maximum temperature of 45 degrees F (7 .2 degrees C).
(4) Freezers and refrigerators shall be kept clean, and food storage shall permit the air circulation
necessary to maintain the temperature specified in (2) and (3) above.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81078 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING CARE
AND SUPERVISION
(a) Notwithstanding Section 80078, the following shall apply:
81078
(1) The licensee shall arrange for and/or provide those services identified in the client's needs and
services plan as necessary to meet the client's needs.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81079 ACTIVITIES 81079
(a) The licensee shall ensure that planned recreational activities, which include the following, are provided
for the clients:
(1) Activities that require group interaction.
(2) Physical activities including but not limited to games, sports, and exercises.
(b) Each client who is capable shall be given the opportunity to participate in the planning, preparation,
conduct, clean-up and critique of the activities.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
81079 (Cont.) SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81079 ACTIVITIES (Continued) 81079
(c) The licensee shall ensure that clients are encouraged to participate in and shall make available community
activities including but not limited to the following:
(1) Worship services and activities of the client's choice.
(2) Community service activities.
(3) Community events including but not limited to concerts, tours, dances, plays and celebrations of
special events.
(4) Self-help organizations.
(5) Senior citizen groups, sports leagues, and service clubs.
(d) Notices of planned activities shall be posted in a central location readily accessible to clients, relatives,
and representatives of placement and referral agencies.
(e) Activities shall be encouraged through provision of the space, equipment, and supplies specified in
Sections 81087.2, 81087.3 and 81088(f).
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health·and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81080 RESIDENT COUNCILS 81080
(a) Each facility, at the request of a majority of its residents, shall assist its residents in establishing and
maintaining a resident-oriented facility council.
(1) The licensee shall provide space for, and post notice of, meetings, and shall provide assistance in
attending council meetings for those residents who request it.
(A) If residents are unable to read the posted notice because of physical or functional
disabilities, the licensee shall notify the residents in a manner appropriate to that disability
including but not limited to verbal announcements.
(2) The licensee shall document notice of meetings, meeting times, and recommendations from
council meetings.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81080
81080 RESIDENT COUNCILS (Continued) 81080
(3) In order to permit a free exchange of ideas, at least part of each meeting shall be conducted without
the presence of any facility personnel.
(4) Residents shall be encouraged, but shall not be compelled to attend council meetings.
(b) The licensee shall ensure that in providing for resident councils the requirements ot the Health and
Safety Code Section 1520.2 are observed.
HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE
(1) Health and Safety Code Section 1520.2 reads in pertinent part:
"(a) ... The council shall be composed of residents of the facility and may include family
members of residents of the facility. The council may, among other things, make
recommendations to facility administrators to improve the quality of daily living in the
facility and may negotiate to protect residents' rights with facility administrators.
(b) A violation of subdivision (a) shall not be subject to the provisions of Section 1540
(misdemeanors) but shall be subject to the provisions of Section 1534 (civil penalties) and
any other provisions of this chapter.
(c) This section shall not apply to a community care facility .. .licensed to provide care for six
(6) or fewer individuals."
HANDBOOK ENDS HERE
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501, 1502(a)(7) and 1520.2 Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81087 (Cont.)
Article 7. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
81087 BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS 81087
(a) In addition to Section 80087, the following shall apply.
(b) Bedrooms must meet, at a minimum, the following requirements:
(1) No more than two clients shall sleep in a bedroom unless the program justifies a group living
arrangement of more than two persons to a room and such arrangement is approved in writing by
the licensing agency.
(2) Bedrooms must be large enough to allow for easy passage and comfortable use of any required
client assistive devices including but not limited to wheel chairsi walkers, or oxygen equipment.
between beds and other items of furniture specified in Section 81088(c).
(3) No room commonly used for other purposes shall be used as a bedroom for any person.
(4) No client bedroom shall be used as a public or general passageway to another room, bath, or toilet.
(c) Stairways, inclines, ramps, open porches, and areas of potential hazard to clients whose balance or
eyesight is poor shall not be used by clients unless such areas are well lighted and equipped with sturdy
hand railings.
(d) Facilities shall meet the following requirements in laundry areas:
(1) Space and equipment for washing, ironing and mending of personal clothing.
(2) Space used for soiled linen and clothing shall be separated from the clean linen and clothing
storage and handling area.
(e) There shall be space available in the facility to serve as an office for business, administration, and
admission activities.
(f) The licensee shall have the authority to use a centralized service facility to provide laundry or food service
to two or more licensed facilities if the use of the centralized facility does not result in a violation of
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 1, Section 80076 or Chapter 2, Section
81088 and the licensing agency has issued prior written approval.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Page 38
81087 (Cont.) SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81087 BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS..(Continued) 81087
(g) Notwithstanding Section 80087(h) firearms, weapons, and ammunition are not permitted in the facility
or on the facility property.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81087.2 OUTDOOR ACTIVITY SPACE 81087.2
(a) The licensee shall ensure that outdoor activity areas are provided, are easily accessible to clients and
protected from traffic.
(b) The licensee shall ensure that the outdoor activity areas are shaded, comfortable, and furnished for
outdoor use.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
81087.3 INDOOR ACTIVITY SPACE 81087.3
(a) As a condition of licensure, there shall be common rooms, including a living room, dining room, den
or other recreation/ activity room, which provide the necessary space and/ or separation to promote
activity programs within the facility and to prevent such activities from interfering with other functions.
( 1) At least one such room shall be available to clients for relaxation and visitation with friends and/ or
relatives.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Page 39
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES 81088 (Cont.)
81088 FIXTURES, FURNITURE, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES 81088
(a) In addition to Section 80088, as a condition of licensure, the following shall apply.
(b) Toilet, washbasin, and bath and shower fixtures shall at a minimum meet the following requirements:
(1) At least one toilet and washbasin shall be maintained for each six persons residing in the facility.
(2) At least one bathtub or shower shall be maintained for each six persons residing in the facility.
(3) Toilets and bathrooms shall be located near client bedrooms.
(4) Individual privacy shall be provided in all toilet, bath, and shower areas.
(5) The lock on bathroom doors shall allow for quick and easy opening from the outside.
(c) The licensee shall ensure provision to each client of the following furniture, equipment and supplies
necessary for personal care and maintenance of personal hygiene.
(1) An individual bed, except that couples shall be allowed to share one double or larger size bed,
maintained in good repair, and equipped with good bed springs, a clean mattress, and pillow(s).
(A) Fillings and covers for mattresses and pillows shall be flame retardant.
(B) No social rehabilitation facility shall have more beds for client use than required for the
maximum capacity approved by the licensing agency.
(2) In addition to Subsection (c)(l) above, each client shall have a chair, a night stand, and a lamp or
lights necessary for reading.
(A) Two clients sharing a bedroom shall be permitted to share one night stand.
CALIFORNIADSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
81088 (Cont.) SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES Regulations
81088 FIXTURES, FURNITURE, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES
(Continued)
81088
(3) Permanent or portable closets and drawer space in each bedroom to accommodate the client's
clothing and personal belongings.
(A) A minimum of two drawers or eight cubic feet (.2664 cubic meters) of drawer space,
whic;hever is greater, shall be provided for each client.
(4) Clean linen in good repair, including lightweight, warm blankets and bedspreads; top and bottom
bed sheets; pillow cases; mattress pads; rubber or plastic sheeting, when necessary; and bath towels,
hand towels, and washcloths.
(A) The quantity of linen provided shall permit changing the linen at least once each week or
more often when necessary to ensure that clean linen is in use by clients at all times.
(B) The use of common towels and washcloths shall be prohibited.
(5) Feminine napkins, nonmedicated soap, toilet paper, toothbrush, toothpaste, and comb.
(d) If the facility maintains its own laundry equipment, necessary supplies shall be available and equipment
shall be maintained in good repair.
(1) If the washing machine and/or dryer is coin operated, clients shall be provided with coins or
tokens and laundry supplies.
(A) Coins and laundry supplies shall be provided to clients when public laundry equipment
is used.
(B) The licensee shall be permitted to designate a safe location or locations, and/or times in
which clients shall be permitted to iron.
(e) Emergency lighting, which shall include at a minimum working flashlights or other battery-powered
lighting, shall be maintained and readily available in areas accessible to clients and staff.
(1) An open-flame type of light shall not be used.
(2) Night lights shall be maintained in hallways and passages to nonprivate bathrooms.
(f) The licensee shall provide and maintain the equipment and supplies necessary to meet the requirements
of the planned activity program.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL-98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Regulations SOCIAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES
81088 FIXTURES, FURNITURE, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES
(Continued)
81088
81088
(1) Such supplies shall include but not be limited to daily newspapers, current magazines and a variety
of reading materials.
(2) Special equipment and supplies necessary to accommodate physically handicapped persons or other
persons with special needs shall be provided to meet the needs of handicapped clients.
(3) When not in use, recreational equipment and supplies shall be stored where they do not create a
hazard to clients.
(g) All social rehabilitation facilities, except facilities with sprinkling systems, shall have an approved,
commercially manufactured and battery operated smoke detector installed in the hallway(s) in each
sleeping area in the home. The smoke detectors shall be audible in each bedroom or sleeping room.
(h) Facilities shall meet the following signal system requirements:
(1) Any facility certified as a Short-Term Crisis Residential Program and/or a Long-Term Residential
Treatment Program with a licensed capacity of 15 or more clients, or having separate floors or
separate buildings without full-time staff present on each floor or in each separate building when
clients are present, shall have a signal system or shall have facility staff visually check on all clients
no less than on an hourly basis.
(2) If a signal system is used, it shall meet the following requirements.
(A) Operation from each client's sleeping unit.
(B) Transmission of a visual and/or auditory signal to a central location, or production of an
auditory signal at the client's living unit which is loud enough to summon staff.
(C) Identification of the specific client's sleeping unit from which the signal originates.
NOTE: Authority Cited: Section 1530, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 5453 and 5458, Welfare
and Institutions Code; Sections 1501 and 1502(a)(7), Health and Safety Code.
CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUALCCL
MANUAL LETTER NO. CCL98-06 Effective 10/1/98
Sheila Cobian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sober Living Homes
Joanna C Nicholson
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11 :SO AM
Hector Gomez
Re: Council meeting 5/12/2020
Let me know if you need any additional information.
Thank you,
Joanna Nicholson
All Receive -Agenda Item # 3
l'or the Information of the:
ITY COUNCIL J
Dt1te 0 \'}--CA V cc ✓
-CM . ACM~M(3)_
On Tuesday, May 12, 2020, 10:54:30 AM PDT, Hector Gomez <hector.gomez@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
Could you please clarify which agenda item you are speaking on?
Thank you,
Hector Gomez
Deputy City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949
www.carlsbadca.gov
760-434-5021 I hector.qomez@carlsbadca.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Nicholson
Sent: Monday, May 11 , 2020 10:27 PM ·
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Council meeting 5/12/2020
My email relates to an agenda item and I desire to have the email read into the record at the City Council meeting
Please help me understand. I am the mother of four young and impressionable children . There is absolutely no good that
can come from this house situation . These people are not being taken care of. I have stood by quietly for too long. My
boys have witnessed and discussed "white vans pulling up and piles of people come out and truck in the house then
silver vans leave with piles of people." Massive bodies and suitcases being shipped in and out What kind of operation is
happening here? EMS services deployed THREE times in FOUR weeks. What is the rental agreement? I never see the
same 6 people there; as I was told it was a group home for 6. It is like a vagrant motel with constant turnover. How is this
helping people? I have been a practicing medical clinician for over 20 years and I have never seen a more blatant
scheme for exploitation. Seems like a devious shell game. Obviously terrible for the community and devastating for these
poor people that need some actual help.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1
Sheila Cobian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Vincent Ponce
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:59 AM
City Clerk
Sober Living Home on Camino Del Sol
All Receive~ Agenda Item# 6
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL J
Date ~l \~CA ,/ CC L
CM-~-CM _.Joe_ DCtvM (3)
This letter is being provided to you for the public verbal comment section of the council's agenda ...
Vincent Ponce
Carlsbad,Ca.92008
Good Evening Mayor Hall and City Council Members,
I was taught if you work hard you can achieve the American Dream. Home ownership, raising
children in a safe neighborhood, being a good neighbor, giving back to your community through
service, being honest, and gainfully employed were cornerstones of that dream. Regrettably, I believe
decisions you have made in the last few years have served to undermine this dream for our
community.
There are only nine homes on the cul de sac my family lives on. One is a sober living facility (with a
six week turnover of clients), and two Airbnb's (with a constant flow of strangers). Each of these
homes have been turned into "for profit" businesses, at our neighborhood's expense.
Having "sober living clients" walk up and down our cul de sac, or linger in front' of their "home"
smoking, or needing emergency services on a regular ba?is, undermines our sense of community
and safety. On one occasion our teenage daughter discovered an infant child, strapped into a car
seat, abandoned on the sidewalk in front of this home. We had to call the police who then spent 3-4
hours on the street trying to sort out what happened with a client. On a regular basis, Fire and
Paramedics are summoned for medical emergencies. This often involves multiple CPD officers who
also respond. Further, parking is a problem on our cul de sac due to the number of employees who
work at the SLH and those staying in the Airbnb's.
As I understand it the owners of the Sober Living Home are requesting state licensing that would
result in a new designation as a Social Rehabilitation Facility. We are completely opposed to any
changes that would expand the services or the number of clients that this business serves provides.
Please consider the impact of your actions on the honest and hardworking citizens who have made
Carlsbad their home. Let's not create a city where you buy a million dollar home just to live next door
to a "Social Rehabilitation Facility" or an "Airbnb."
Thank you for your consideration.
Vincent Ponce
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Gary Nessim
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2: 10 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Agenda item 3 Group homes No need to read aloud
Honorable Mayor Matt Hall
Council Members
City Manager Scott Chadwick
May 12, 2020
No need to read aloud.
You are receiving a most excellent report from a very fine staff.
All Receive -Agenda Item tt3_
For the Information of the:
-~112' COUNCIL
Dat~CA v cc ✓
CM ;r-ACM ~DCM (3) 1/
I have lived near a group home for several years now and find it annoying but tolerable. What I
did not like is that there is no business license required and therefore no notice to residents
that an extensive rental business ( like a small hostel or hotel ) is about to move in, or has
moved into your residential neighborhood.
Please consider, at a later date when some action is recommended, requiring a business
license for all rental properties, so that we can keep track of room rentals, recovery homes,
vacation rentals, and keep statistics on this which will assist us in knowing our low income
housing and other resources provided in Carlsbad. This data is more easily maintained by
online permitting than years past and is not discriminatory.
Gary Nessim
Carlsbad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
1
Jeff Murphy
Community Development Director
May 12, 2020
A Report from the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee
on Sober Living Homes
Background
•Feb. 19, 2019 info report on sober living homes
•July 23, 2019 ad-hoc subcommittee created
•Dec. 2, 2019 staff discussed meeting logistics
•Jan. 29, 2020 public meeting
•Apr. 17, 2020 staff discussed report
2
The Report
•Different types and purposes
•Overview of governing laws and regulations
•Permitting limitations
•Attempts to change the law
•Ad-hoc subcommittee meeting
•Conclusions
3
Types & Purpose
•Sober Living Homes
Occupants act as a “family unit”
Treated like any other single-family home
Professional treatment not provided
Typically ≤6, but more can reside in home
4
Types & Purpose
•Residential Care Facilities
Occupants act as a “family unit”
Treated like any other single-family home
Non-medical treatment provided
Typically ≤6 occupants
5
Types & Purpose
•Professional Care Facilities
Professional treatment center
Medical/non-medical treatment provided
Typically larger facilities
6
Regulations & Case Law
•Individuals recovering from addiction = “disabled”
•Regulations cannot discriminate against disabled persons
•Must be treated like any other home
•Occupants are considered a “family unit”
•Cannot develop occupancy limits that are different from
single-family homes
7
Regulations & Case Law
TABLE 1:
Permitting Requirements per Facility Type
City Authority
Can a Can a Medical Non-Medical State Business Discretionary Facility Number of Services Services License License be Permit be Type1 Occupants1
Provided?1 Provided?1 Required? Required? Required?
Sober Living ::s; Six No No No No No Home
Sober Living ~ Seven No No No No No Home
Residential Care s Six No Yes Yes Yes No Facilities
Residential Care ~ Seven No Yes Yes Yes Yes Facilities
Professional ~ One Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Care Facilities
1 Refer to "Types of Facilities," pages 5-6
Permitting Limitations
•Current known facilities in Carlsbad
11 Sober Living Homes
5 Residential Care Facilities (≤ 6 people)
0 Residential Care Facilities (≥7 people)
0 Professional Care Facilities
9
Attempts to change the law
•City of Newport Beach
•City of Costa Mesa
•Litigation pending; premature to draw
conclusions
10
Ad-hoc Meeting
•Over 20 people attended the Jan. 29th meeting
•Community given until Feb. 12th to comment
•Public comments grouped into four categories:
Process concerns
Legal & Policy
Zoning & building
Safety
11
Ad-hoc Meeting –Public Comments
•Process Concerns
Committee make up
Late start
Lack of communication
Lack of partnership with state
12
Ad-hoc Meeting –Public Comments
•Legal & Policy Concerns
Lack of coordination with the state
Homes operate like STVR
Need for inspections
Background checks owners/operators
Cities authority limited
13
Ad-hoc Meeting –Public Comments
•Zoning & Building Concerns
Licensing and oversight
Distance between SLHs
Act as businesses
Homes not adequate for use
Occupancy limits
14
Ad-hoc Meeting –Public Comments
•Safety Concerns
Welfare of residents
Exploitation of residents
Neighborhood safety
Language, smoking and traffic
Transient nature
15
•Restrictions in current state & federal laws
•Lack of clear legal clarity in California case law
•Difficult to adopt local regulations to address
community concerns
Ad-hoc Meeting –Staff Analysis
16
Recommendations
•Continue to work with our lobbyists and
representatives to change laws
•Continue tracking other cities’ lawsuits and bring
forward feasible regulation opportunities
17
Recommendations
•Enforce regulations that apply to residential zones
•Parking
•Nuisances noise
•Trash
•Property maintenance & upkeep
18
Jeff Murphy
Community Development Director
May 12, 2020
A Report from the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee
on Sober Living Homes
19