Source: https://www.westerncity.com/article/sober-living-businesses-residential-zones
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 21:18:48+00:00

Document:
Christi Hogin is city attorney for Lomita, Malibu and Palos Verdes Estates. She serves as second vice president for the League’s City Attorneys’ Department and chaired the editorial committee for the League’s Municipal Law Handbook, 2014 edition. Hogin can be reached at CHogin@LocalGovLaw.com.
Current law limits local regulation of sober living homes and residential alcohol and drug rehabilitation (rehab) facilities. These uses have become lucrative businesses in many instances, and their operation in single-family neighborhoods is sometimes controversial. This article presents the current legal constraints and considerations for cities related to these homes and facilities.
2. State law imposes fewer restrictions on licensed residential rehab programs than other licensed group homes. State-licensed group homes are subject to different restrictions. The Community Care Facilities Act, from which alcohol and drug rehabs are exempt, imposes various restrictions that protect the character of residential neighborhoods. For example, under the act, licensed foster homes cannot be for-profit businesses.7 ADPs, however, may operate as for-profit enterprises in residential zones without business licenses because licenses generally are not required of other single-family uses.
Cities receive written notice of a proposed Community Care Facilities Act facility, and “any city or county may request denial of the license … on the basis of overconcentration of residential care facilities.”8 The state does not provide any notice to cities before a new ADP license is issued.
The attorney general has opined that the state “may not deny an application for licensure or suspend or revoke the license of a treatment facility because the particular community already has more than a sufficient number of treatment facilities to meet the local need.”13 With that conclusion, the attorney general determined the Legislature’s reference to consideration of “local need” in approving ADP treatment facility licenses did not establish a basis to limit their numbers in any neighborhood.
4. Anti-discrimination laws and “reasonable accommodation” requirements limit categorical regulation of sober living homes. Federal14 and state15 fair housing laws protect people with disabilities from housing discrimination. Recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are disabled for purposes of anti-discrimination laws.16 When people in recovery live together in a “sober living” home, cities cannot discriminate on the basis of the disability, which means an ordinance cannot treat sober living homes differently than other similar uses in single-family17 residential zones.
The Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 prohibit local governments, among other things, from discriminating against the disabled by establishing a bedroom/per occupant rule,19 imposing distance requirements between facilities or prohibiting commercial operators from running sober living facilities in residential neighborhoods. Likewise, requiring a sober living home to obtain a conditional use permit, business license or home occupation permit would impose requirements on the residences of “handicapped” persons that are not imposed on other residences.
A recent case suggests heightened standards for local ordinances challenged as discriminatory. The City of Newport Beach adopted an ordinance that appears neutral because it applies to group living situations (distinguished from single housekeeping units) but does not single out recovering alcoholics or drug addicts. Newport Beach was sued for discrimination by plaintiffs claiming that the ordinance’s intent is to regulate sober living homes in particular. The Ninth Circuit ordered a trial to determine if Newport Beach enacted the ordinance with an intent to discriminate based on certain evidence that it was the city’s purpose and because the ordinance “had the practical effect of prohibiting new group homes from opening in most residential zones.”20 A petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the ruling is anticipated shortly.
6. Regulation to benefit the protected class is allowed. Relying on cases interpreting the federal Fair Housing Act, the California Legislative Counsel21 has opined that “sober living homes” may not be subject to distance requirements, unless the regulation benefits the protected class or responds to legitimate safety concerns raised by individuals affected rather than being based on stereotypes.22 The italicized provision marks the intersection between local and state interests. Cities exercise zoning power to protect the character of residential neighborhoods. The policy underlying state law pre-emption is to provide care in a residential setting. The antidiscrimination laws are intended to protect equal opportunity to enjoy housing opportunities. Maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods is necessary to provide the beneficial setting and the housing opportunity. Many would argue that distancing requirements both respond to the biggest concerns of local government and advance state policy.23 As more communities gain experience with the effect of unregulated uses, implementing antidiscrimination statutes may soon demand what they now appear to prohibit.
For more information, visit www.cacities.org/GroupHomes.
The League will present a webinar for city officials and staff from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. on Sept. 17, 2014, that examines issues related to sober living homes. Learn more about this topic, and take advantage of this opportunity to have your questions answered by experts. To sign up, visit www.cacities.org/events.
 Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) 272 U.S. 365 (cities may zone property for certain uses and exclude others, e.g. creating residential zones where businesses are excluded).
 See City Attorneys’ Department, League of California Cities, The California Municipal Law Handbook (Cont.Ed.Bar 2013 ed.) §§1.33-1.41.
 H&S Code §11834.01 et seq.
 Facilities that provide medical services are not residential uses and may be prohibited from residential zones. Also note that licensed community care facilities that serve seven or more patients must be treated exactly the same as a multifamily residential use and cannot be defined as a “boarding house.” They may be prohibited from the single family residential zones.
 Alcohol and drug treatment facilities for adolescents are governed by the Community Care Facilities Act. They are licensed, nonmedical and serve six or fewer. H&S Code §1502(a)(1); H&S Code §1566.3.
 90 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 109 at 5 (No. 07-601).
 28 C.F.R. § 35.104; The Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 clarify that “handicap” does not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance.
 For land-use regulation purposes, a “family” is people, whether or not related, who share household chores and expenses, eat meals together, participate in recreational activities together and form close bonds. See Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123. The law prohibits a zoning ordinance from defining “family” by distinguishing between related and unrelated persons or by imposing a numerical limit on the number of persons that constitute a family.
 Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 77 F.3d 249 (8th Cir. 1996) (however, a group home’s refusal to seek a variance precludes a claim for failure to accommodate).
 Per-occupant requirements applied equally to all residential uses within the same zone are valid under the Fair Housing Act. See, e.g., Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 77 F.3d 249 (upholding as valid an eight-person restriction).
 Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 1142, rehearing denied en banc, 746 F3d 936.
 The Office of Legislative Counsel is a nonpartisan public agency that drafts legislative proposals, prepares legal opinions and provides other confidential legal services to the Legislature and others. According to Legislative Counsel, it maintains an attorney-client relationship with each member of the Legislature and the governor and releases only opinions that have already been released by a client. Excerpts of the 1997 opinion are in the public domain, such as the first page submitted by the Sober Living Network to the City of Los Angeles in 2008 when it considered adopting sober living regulations.
 The legal test to determine whether an ordinance that subjects a protected class to different treatment — e.g., sober living homes must have conditional use permits to operate but other homes do not — is discriminatory in violation of the Fair Housing Act depends on the government’s ability to establish that the restriction benefits the class or responds to legitimate safety concerns. Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2007) 490 F.3d 1041, 1050.
 Note that courts have been skeptical of the anti-clustering justifications raised by cities in various cases. However, these cases have largely arisen in purely theoretical contexts. As the “unregulatable” uses cluster and create concrete examples, cities may be able to produce more sound evidentiary records of the adverse effects of clustering.

References: v. 
 §11834
 §1502
 §1566
 § 35
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.