The City of L.A. is moving forward with a proposed ordinance that would place restrictions on sober-living and group homes. Four of five L.A. City Planning Commissioners voted to approve the Community Care Facilities Ordinance at their hearing on February 10. The ordinance will now head to the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) for approval before going to the full L.A. City Council. City Councilman Greig Smith, representing District 12, initiated the proposed ordinance in 2007 after hearing complaints from his constituents about panhandling, foul language, traffic congestion and excessive noise in connection with these homes. On February 10, Palisades Community Council Chair Janet Turner and fellow members Jennifer Malaret, Jack Allen, Barbara Kohn and Chris Spitz urged the Commission to approve the ordinance with minor modifications. They presented a letter from the Council, which voted unanimously to support the city’s efforts on September 23 after hearing from upset neighbors. There are three known sober-living homes in Pacific Palisades and more are planned. '[The ordinance] is an intelligent and balanced approach to the needs of the disabled and the preservation of the residential character of R1-R2 neighborhoods,’ Turner wrote. The proposed ordinance would add new regulations on state-licensed group homes and boarding houses operating in residential neighborhoods. State-licensed group homes serve recovering drug addicts, alcoholics, senior citizens, parolees and people with developmental disabilities. State law prohibits cities from regulating licensed facilities with six or fewer residents differently from single-family homes, so those facilities cannot be affected by the proposed ordinance. The L.A. City Planning Department staff, however, is recommending that state-licensed facilities with seven or more residents be allowed to operate as long as they meet certain standards such as adequate parking, minimal noise and night lighting. Sober-living homes, however, are considered boarding houses, which do not require state licensure, because they comprise a group of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who have committed to living together as a family. Unlike licensed homes, the residents do not receive care, treatment, individual or group counseling from professionals, case management, medication management or treatment planning. The Planning Department’s staff is proposing that the city code be amended to define ‘family’ as people who live in a single housekeeping unit with residents under one lease agreement. Any homes in R1 and R2 zones that involve more than one lease agreement would be considered boarding houses, and they would be prohibited. Jeff Christensen, project director of The Sober Living Network (a nonprofit organization that advocates sober-living homes) told the Palisadian-Post that most sober-living homes have more than one lease agreement because landlords require that each tenant sign a lease in order to protect their property. But he argues that the proposed ordinance will not be effective in preventing these homes from operating in residential neighborhoods because the sober-living industry will simply modify its lease agreements to comply if the ordinance is passed. Christensen thinks that a more effective approach would be for the city to form a task force comprising multiple agencies to shut down problem homes. ’Sober-living homes have been operating in this city for decades,’ Christensen said, noting they provide a safe and sober place for people. ‘For every single problem house, there are hundreds that are not problems. Many people do not even know they are there.’ Pacific Palisades resident Rebecca Lobl, who lives next to a sober-living home on Muskingum Avenue, argues that the mere existence of boarding houses changes the quality of life in single-family neighborhoods. She alleges that her family has experienced second-hand smoke and late-night disturbances. She has co-founded a nonprofit organization, the L.A. Coalition for Neighborhoods, to advocate for the ordinance. On February 22, Lobl met with City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, representing District 11 (which includes Pacific Palisades), and presented him a 17-page letter outlining the coalition’s position. ’The sober-living industry argues that it can successfully self-regulate its houses and that the only problem houses are either not sober-living houses at all or few and far between,’ Lobl wrote. ‘This is not the experience of many residents living in communities which have sober-living houses and other types of boarding houses in their areas.’ As of February 19, 25 community and neighborhood councils have passed motions, and 264 L.A. residents have signed a petition supporting the ordinance, according to Lobl. To counter Christensen’s argument, Lobl said she believes the ordinance will be effective in preventing sober-living homes from continuing to operate. She pointed to the clause stating ‘the makeup of the household occupying the unit is determined by the residents of the unit rather than the landlord or property manager.’ ’This clause is the city’s effort to ensure that boarding-house businesses, which typically select their clients themselves, are zoned out of R1 and R2, but people who choose to live together and self-select each other, more like a family, are allowed to live in these low-density zones,’ she told the Post. In the coming months, Christensen and Lobl plan to advocate for their respective positions by writing letters and meeting with City Council members. If the ordinance reaches the full City Council, it will require a two-thirds favorable vote in order to become effective because the Planning Commission’s vote was not unanimous. Rosendahl told the Palisadian-Post on February 25 that ‘I am taking meetings with all sides of the issue. I’m sensitive to the people with addiction who want and need help, but I am also sensitive to the neighbors and the community and what impact [these homes] have if not done properly.’
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
