Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Ordinance No. NS-XXX <br />Page 3 of 27 <br /> <br />M. The state Legislature has recognized the need to prevent overconcentration of <br />residential facilities that impairs the integrity of res idential neighborhoods and <br />leads to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods, which undermines the <br />benefits of deinstitutionalization (Cal. Health & Saf. Code §§ 1520.5 & 1267.9). To <br />that end, state law allows applications for new residential facility licenses to be <br />denied if the facility’s location is near an existing residential facility, thereby <br />resulting in overconcentration. <br /> <br />N. Overconcentration of other group homes for the disabled, including sober-living <br />homes, impairs the integrity of residential neighborhoods and undermines the <br />benefits of deinstitutionalization. The number of sober-living homes in the region <br />is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober -living homes in <br />many cities. <br /> <br />O. The purpose of sober-living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment <br />for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober <br />and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, <br />and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the neighborhood of their choice. <br /> <br />P. Individuals recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction, who are not currently <br />using alcohol or drugs, are considered disabled under both the FHAA and FEHA. <br /> <br />Q. This Ordinance and the balance of the City’s zoning provide a benefit to group <br />homes by allowing these facilities to locate in residential neighborhoods, whereas <br />a similarly situated and functioning home with non-disabled tenants would be <br />defined as a boarding house and continue to be prohibited in all zoning districts. <br /> <br />R. Group homes (including sober-living homes) typically do not function as a single <br />housekeeping unit for the following reasons: (1) they house transient populations <br />(programs are generally about 90 days and, a 2005 UCLA study found that 65–70 <br />percent of individuals recovering from addiction leave even earlier); (2) the <br />residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and <br />typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know <br />those who reside in the home, nor do the residents know the neighbors; (4) the <br />residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn’t live in the home; (5) the <br />residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible <br />for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they <br />are often evicted from the house; (8) the residents generally do not share the same <br />acquaintances; and (9) residents often pay significantly above -market rate rents. <br />The lack of single-housekeeping-unit characteristics contributes to institutional <br />living conditions. <br /> <br />S. The size and makeup of the households in group homes, even those allowed as a <br />matter of right under the Code, can create institutional living conditions because <br />they tend to be larger than average single housekeeping units, creating impacts <br />on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than <br />the average household, in that the average number of persons per California <br />household is 2.86. A sober-living facility allowed as a matter of right can house six