With three sober living homes in Pacific Palisades and more planned, the Community Council voted unanimously last Thursday to support efforts by the city of Los Angeles to pass an ordinance that places restrictions on these homes and other community care facilities. ’We hope this will be a first step in helping the community deal with this issue,’ Council Chair Janet Turner said, noting that the Council would like some specific conditions included in the ordinance. The City Planning Department is proposing a Community Care Facility Ordinance that would add new regulations on state-licensed group homes and boarding/rooming houses operating in residential neighborhoods. State-licensed group homes serve recovering drug addicts, alcoholics, senior citizens, parolees and people with developmental disabilities. The Community Council is asking that the city not allow any unlicensed community care facilities to operate in residential neighborhoods and to not ‘grandfather in’ existing facilities that are operating unlicensed or illegally. State law allows licensed facilities with six or fewer residents in any zone that permits single-family homes, so those facilities cannot be affected by the proposed ordinance. However, the Council asks that all state-licensed facilities be located 300 feet apart and 2,000 feet from schools, churches, temples and other places of worship. Planning Department staff is recommending that state-licensed facilities with seven or more residents be allowed to operate as a ‘public benefit’ as long as they meet seven performance standards, including adequate parking, minimal noise and night lighting. A ‘public benefit’ is a use that is permitted through a ministerial process that requires no public hearing or letter of determination. The Community Council, however, asks that a public hearing be held before the city makes a decision. City Councilman Greig Smith initiated the proposed ordinance by introducing a motion asking for land-use controls of sober living homes in October 2007. He heard complaints from his constituents about secondhand smoke, panhandling, foul language, traffic congestion and excessive noise in connection with these homes. Sober living homes differ from state licensed facilities because they comprise a group of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who have committed to living together as a family. Therefore, these homes are not subject to state licensure requirements because residents do not receive care, treatment, individual or group counseling from professionals, case management, medication management or treatment planning. ’Any regulation that treats sober living homes less favorably than analogous uses is discriminatory and therefore unlawful,’ according to the Planning Department’s recommendation report on the ordinance, which will be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration on October 14. ’Accordingly, to protect the character of low-density residential neighborhoods, address the community’s concerns, and ensure a lawful ordinance, the Planning Department therefore recommends new provisions intended to strengthen the regulation of the broader category of boarding/rooming houses without singling out sober living homes as such.’ The 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, R2 and RD zones that involve more than one lease agreement would be considered boarding/rooming houses, and they would be prohibited. A homeowner may still take in boarders or roommates, but all of them must be under the same lease agreement. Jeff Christensen, project director of The Sober Living Network (a nonprofit organization that advocates sober living homes), told the Palisadian-Post on Monday 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. ’It’s pretty far-reaching,’ Christensen said, noting that this proposed restriction would also affect senior citizens and college students living together. ‘We think the city needs to shore up the nuisance abatement [ordinance] instead. Let’s identify the nuisance homes ‘ they could be sober living homes or other types of homes.’ At last Thursday’s meeting, Christensen argued that the proposed ordinance does not provide any evidence that homes with more than one lease agreement in low-density residential areas are a public nuisance or that they threaten public health and safety. For the past eight months, Palisades resident Rebecca Lobl has lived next to Greenfield Lodge, a sober living home at 520 Muskingum Ave., and she has a different perspective. ’There are 10 residents and one caregiver; it’s like living next to a small hotel,’ Lobl told the Council last Thursday. ‘It seems to me the faces change daily.’ Since the home opened next door, her family now smells secondhand smoke, experiences late-night disturbances and witnesses inappropriate behavior. ’It has changed the way we feel about hanging out in our backyard ‘ the way we feel about our community,’ said Lobl, who has an 11-year-old daughter and 15-year-old son with her husband, Andrew Halpern. Lobl has formed a nonprofit organization, L.A. Coalition for Neighbors, with her neighbor Fran Vincent and another unnamed resident to work with the city on the ordinance. They hope to raise money to hire a lobbyist and a land use attorney to work with the city. A former litigator who now works in legal services for attorneys, Lobl will speak about her organization at 7:15 tonight at Santa Ynez Canyon Club (17005 Palisades Circle) in the Highlands. Greenfield Lodge Director Adam Dixon told the Post that Lobl’s allegations against the sober living home are unfounded. Smoking is banned in the backyard as a courtesy to the neighbors, and the residents are in bed between 10 p.m. and midnight. ’These are people who are trying to get on their feet,’ he said. ‘They should not be judged because of who they used to be.’ Eight to 10 residents, typically ages 23 to 37, live in the home and most stay for at least six months. The residents are all recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who have chosen to live together as a family, so Greenfield Lodge does not require a license from the state. Volunteers called client supervisors visit the home, Dixon said. They are recovering addicts who are available to talk about their experiences and to interact with the residents through activities such as yoga, meditation and surfing. Dixon said that the proposed ordinance changing the rules for boarding/rooming houses could mean Greenfield would be closed. The Planning Department is hosting an informational meeting and seeking comment about the proposed ordinance on October 6 from 5 to 9 p.m. in the auditorium of the Felicia Mahood Senior Center, 11338 Santa Monica Blvd. The Planning Commission will discuss the ordinance at 8:30 a.m. on October 14 at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 North Spring St. Until October 7, written comments on the ordinance can be sent to the Commission Secretariat, 200 North Main St., Room 532, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
