Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Ordinance No. NS-XXX <br />Page 2 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />E. To fulfill this core purpose, the FHAA and FEHA require that the City grant an <br />exception to its zoning ordinances if the exception is both reasonable and <br />necessary to accommodate a person’s legal disability to afford the disabled person <br />an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. <br /> <br />F. Several state laws require the City to treat state licensed residential care facilities <br />serving six or fewer as a residential use, such that it is permitted in residential <br />zoning districts (see, e.g., Health and Safety Code, §§ 1267.8, 1566.3, 1568.0831, <br />and 11834.23). A report conducted by the 2022–2023 Grand Jury for the County <br />of Orange found that the resulting deinstitutionalization of group living <br />arrangements for the disabled has had a positive effect upon the disabled.1 <br /> <br />G. The City’s goal in enacting this Ordinance is to preserve the residential <br />characteristics of residential neighborhoods, and to provide opportunities for the <br />disabled to reside in residential zones that are enjoyed by the non -disabled. <br /> <br />H. Over the past several years the region has seen a significant increase in the <br />number of residential homes being utilized as alcohol and drug re covery facilities <br />for large numbers of individuals (“sober-living homes”). <br /> <br />I. The increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime <br />Prevention Act of 2000 adopted by California voters, which provides that specified <br />first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive <br />substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration. <br /> <br />J. The Affordable Care Act has also significantly expanded the availability of health <br />care coverage for substance abuse treatment. <br /> <br />K. The region has seen a sharp increase of sober-living homes, which has generated <br />community outcry and complaints including, but not limited to overcrowding, <br />inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober- <br />living facilities in close proximity to each other creating neighborhoods of sober- <br />living homes (see Ohio House LLC v. City of Costa Mesa (9th Cir. 2024) 122 F.4th <br />1097, 1127). <br /> <br />L. This increase in sober-living homes has become a rising concern for cities <br />statewide as local officials are in some cases being bombarded with complaints <br />from residents about the proliferation of sober-living homes; conferences drawing <br />local officials from around the state are being held discussing what to do about <br />challenges associated with sober-living homes; and the appropriate regulation of <br />sober-living homes has been the topic of several League of California Cities <br />meetings. <br /> <br /> <br />1 “Welcome to the Neighborhood: Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”, <br />County of Orange Grand Jury Investigation, 2022-2023, <br />https://www.ocgrandjury.org/sites/jury/files/2023-06/Welcome_to_the_Neighborhood- <br />Are_cities_responsibly_managing_the_integration_of_group_homes.pdf .”