TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: David Chantarangsu, Development Services Director
PREPARED BY: David Chantarangsu, AICP, Development Services Director
SUBJECT:
title
Recommendation to the City Council concerning Municipal Code Amendment (MCA-2025-00011): Consideration of a proposed ordinance revising Title 16 (Development Code) of the Murrieta Municipal Code by amending Sections 16.08.010 and 16.44.150 related to group homes, sober living homes, and residential care facilities.
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
Staff recommends the following:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public comments;
2. Find that the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment based on the fact that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the proposed ordinance would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Approve the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance attached as an exhibit to the Resolution. The proposed ordinance will revise Title 16 of the Murrieta Municipal Code by amending Sections 16.08.010 and 16.44.150 related to group homes, sober living homes, and residential care facilities.
body
ENVIRONMENTAL
The adoption of the proposed ordinance will not result in a change in the environment and is therefore not a project as defined by CEQA. The proposed changes establish operational development standards to improve the spacing and operations of sober living homes by preventing overcrowding to help disabled residents live in stable, quiet environments. Therefore, this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where, as here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question would have a significant effect on the environment
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
None
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sober living homes in California emerged as an alternative to institutional treatment for individuals recovering from drug and alcohol addiction in the 1940s. While residents of sober living homes are in recovery they are considered to be disabled under state and federal disability laws such as the Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the Lanterman Act. Operation of these homes require no state license, and until recently the operation of a sober living home could not be subject to any local zoning laws that did not otherwise apply to single-family homes.
While the intent of sober living homes is to support residents in recovery in a community-based setting, lack of regulation has led to harmful impacts for both neighborhoods and the disabled residents they serve. Overcrowding, excessive noise, transient populations, and traffic congestion have affected neighborhood stability, while poorly managed or profit-driven operations often fail to provide the supportive, home-like environment envisioned by disability laws. Cities have sought to correct these issues by establishing operational and spacing standards that preserve neighborhood character and prevent “institutionalization” of recovery housing. The operational issues addressed in the proposed ordinance benefit the disabled by promoting stable living environments that foster long-term recovery and align with the principles of resident well-being, safety, and equal housing access through the establishment of the following:
Spacing Requirements:
Establishes minimum distance requirements of 500 or 1,000 feet between sober living homes to prevent overconcentration in residential neighborhoods, depending on the single-family zone the home would be located.
Operational Standards:
Requires sober living homes to operate in a manner consistent with typical residential use, promoting stable, home-like environments.
Occupancy Limits:
Addresses the number of unrelated adults living in a single dwelling to prevent overcrowding and mitigate impacts on city infrastructure.
Neighborhood Impact Mitigation:
Aims to reduce adverse effects such as traffic congestion, noise, second-hand smoke, and excessive demand on public services.
Distinction from Institutional Settings:
Ensures that housing for disabled individuals maintains the character of normal residential surroundings, avoiding dormitory-style or campus-like arrangements.
Oversight:
Connects sober living homes with oversight mechanisms to ensure homes are professionally operated and compliant with City codes through a use permit.
Equal Housing Opportunity Compliance:
Aligns City policies with state and federal fair housing laws by allowing reasonable accommodations while maintaining public health and safety.
BACKGROUND
Sober living homes are operated as housing for individuals recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. Federal laws such as the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 protect recovering individuals' rights to live in residential neighborhoods. Sober living homes today operate largely on a private, market-based model and are not licensed by the state. Because the residents of these homes are considered disabled during their recovery, state and federal laws prioritize the rights of individuals to obtain housing over city and neighborhood concerns regarding traffic, noise, crime, and neighborhood character. The availability of government funding for the treatment of people suffering from drug and alcohol addiction resulted in the establishment of an extraordinary number of sober living homes that in some cases overwhelmed single-family neighborhoods. In 2017, an investigative series by the Southern California News Group (SCNG), identified the extensive and often problematic network of drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers across Southern California it dubbed the “Rehab Riviera” due to the widespread use of unlicensed sober living homes, frequently prioritizing profits over the well-being of recovering addicts. The reporting highlighted significant harms to both residents of sober living homes and the neighborhoods the homes were in, and documented issues such as home overcrowding, home overconcentration, resident relapses, emergency service strains, and elevated crime in surrounding areas. For reference, SCNG’s reporting is available on-line at: <https://www.ocregister.com/rehab-riviera/>. SCNG is the publisher of regional daily newspapers in Southern California such as the Press-Enterprise and the Orange County Register. Federal, state, and local efforts to curb the negative issues commonly associated with unlicensed sober living homes were unsuccessful until 2024 when the City of Costa Mesa’s ordinance addressing sober living homes was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA, No. 22-56181 (9th Cir. 2024). Generally, the court held that the City’s standards benefited disabled residents by establishing requirements that essentially raised the quality of care a disabled resident was likely to receive while recovering from addiction. Costa Mesa’s ordinance addresses the following topics: Identification of the operators and house manager responsible for the occupants of the home; The legal entity responsible for operating the home; Policies and procedures critical to operation of the home; A limitation on the number of occupants; Parking requirements Limitations on “care and supervision” as defined by state law; House operating requirements; Notification requirements to County and City service providers in the event of an eviction; Transportation requirements for residents Separation requirements to prevent overconcentration of sober living homes in one neighborhood; and Rules of conduct for home occupants. In addition, the ordinance established an application procedure giving city staff the ability to ensure all city standards were met before the sober living home began operations. Existing sober living homes were also required to obtain a use permit. With the establishment of procedures and operational requirements that prioritized the well-being of sober living home residents, Costa Mesa’s ordinance was deemed valid and paved the way for cities to emulate the approaches adopted by Costa Mesa for the benefit of disabled residents. Staff is recommending the City follow Costa Mesa’s approach to achieve the same benefits for its current and future residents who may be recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. While the City does not track or otherwise monitor existing sober living homes, staff estimates there are around a dozen homes currently operating in the City based on information available on the internet. The only distinction between Costa Mesa’s ordinance and staff’s recommended standards is the separation requirements between sober living homes. Costa Mesa’s separation approach is essentially based on a “one home per block” approach. For Murrieta, the same approach would be achieved by requiring a 500 foot separation between homes in all but one of the City’s single-family zones. The 500 foot separation would be applicable in the Estate Residential (ER) 1, ER-2, and ER-3 zones in addition to the Single-Family (SF) 1 and SF-2 zones. In the Rural Residential (RR) zone, the separation distance would increase to 1,000 feet. In the ER and SF zones, minimum lot sizes range from one acre to 8,000 square feet. In the RR zone, property sizes can be between 2.5-10 acres, or larger. A greater separation recognizes the larger neighborhood development pattern found in the RR zone as opposed to smaller neighborhood lots in the ER and SF zones. The City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to evaluate street lengths and lot sizes. Staff will provide data that supports the separation recommendation at the public hearing for this item. In addition to amending the City’s standards to emulate Costa Mesa’s approach, staff notes that Boarding Homes are being removed from the list of permitted uses in multi-family zones, which would also remove the potential for Sober Living Homes to be established in the specified zones. The definition of Residential Care Homes was also modified to eliminate conflicts with the proposed ordinance. Residential Care Homes refers to uses that are commonly licensed by the state. The definition has been modified to omit Group Homes as defined by the proposed ordinance.
The Planning Commission’s action is a recommendation to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1- Resolution
2- Ordinance