TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David Chantarangsu, AICP, Development Services Director
PREPARED BY: David Chantarangsu, AICP, Development Services Director
SUBJECT:
title
Municipal Code Amendment (MCA-2025-00011): Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Revising Title 16 (Development Code) of the Murrieta Municipal Code by Adding Section 16.44.045 and Amending Sections 16.08.010, 16.44.150, and 16.110.020 Related to Group Homes, Sober Living Homes, and Residential Care Facilities
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
Conduct the Public Hearing and receive public comments;
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
Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 624-25 entitled: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, to Revise Title 16 of the Murrieta Municipal Code by Adding Section 16.44.045 and Amending Sections 16.08.010, 16.44.150, and 16.110.020 Related to Group Homes, Sober Living Homes, and Residential Care Facilities.
body
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
On August 13, 2025, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance, with the caveat that a greater separation distance be considered (Vote: 3-0-2).
In 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 382-07, establishing definitions and development standards for group homes, including sober living homes (Vote: 5-0).
In 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 441-10 clarifying and revising development standards for group homes, including sober living homes (Vote: 5-0).
CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Provide a high level of innovative public safety.
DISCUSSION
Sober living homes came into existence out of the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous through the establishment of “Twelve Step Homes,” as an alternative to institutional treatment for individuals recovering from 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. Operation of these homes requires 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.
Sober Living Homes Description
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 (42 USC §§ 3601-3631) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990)), protect recovering individuals' rights to live in residential neighborhoods. California law, including the Lanterman Act (Welfare & Inst. Code § 5000 et seq.), Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900 et seq.) and California Community Care Facilities Act (Health & Safety Code §§ 1500 – 1567.94), provide similar protections for licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer individuals, requiring local agencies to consider the residents and operator as a family and preventing such facilities from being prohibited. These laws apply to both General Law and charter cities.
Sober living homes today operate largely on a private, market-based model. 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 City of Murrieta (City) does not track or otherwise monitor existing sober living homes; however, staff estimates there are around a dozen homes currently operating in the City based on information available on the internet.
Operational Issues
While the intent of sober living homes is to support residents in recovery in a community-based setting, the 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.
Documentation of Sober Living Home Operational Impacts on Residents in Recovery
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 report 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 online 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.
City of Costa Mesa’s Sober Living Ordinance
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.
City of Murrieta Proposed Approach
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. The proposed ordinance in Attachment 1 lays out an approach styled after Costa Mesa’s ordinance.
The only distinction between Costa Mesa’s ordinance and the Planning Commission’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. Using that approach, staff recommended the Planning Commission consider a 500-foot separation requirement in single-family zones, and 850 feet in the Rural Residential zone. While the Commission accepted the standards suggested by staff, the Planning Commission encouraged that a greater distance be considered if possible. The record of the Commission’s action is included in Attachment 2.
In support of the Planning Commission’s motion to the City Council, staff further evaluated the separation requirements. For context, Costa Mesa has a population density of approximately 7,000 persons per square mile over an area of 15.8 square miles. Single-family lot sizes are typically around 6,000 square feet. In contrast, Murrieta’s population density is 3,300 persons per square mile over a land area of 33.6 square miles, with minimum lot sizes reaching up to 2.5 acres. The City’s character is of a much lower density than Costa Mesa by roughly half. To maintain a separation requirement that follows Costa Mesa’s approach validated by the Ohio House decision but in keeping with Murrieta’s low-density character, staff recommends the City Council use a 1,000-foot separation requirement for all single-family zones. The proposed standard would allow residents of sober living homes to enjoy the same low-density character that currently exists within the community by doubling the prior recommended approach based on the City’s population density per square mile, thus diminishing the possibility of neighborhood parking shortfalls, overcrowded housing conditions, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise in order to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential environment on par with Murrieta’s current character.
Miscellaneous Changes
To accommodate the proposed changes to the Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC) for sober living homes, MMC Section 16.44.150 is replaced in its entirety to omit references to sober living homes adopted in prior ordinances. Similarly, the definitions of “Rooming and Boarding Houses” and Residential Care Homes were modified to omit references to sober living homes in MMC Chapter 16.110. Sober living homes are also now included in the definition of a “Group Home”. Operational standards for sober living homes are contained in a new section at MMC 16.44.045.
Reasonable Accommodation
It is important to note that nearly any City standard related to housing is subject to “reasonable accommodation” pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Persons with disabilities may apply to have standards or requirements modified in order to have an equal opportunity to use or enjoy housing. The City’s requirements for consideration of a reasonable accommodation request are contained in MMC Chapter 16.73. The proposed 1,000-foot separation requirement would be subject to the City’s reasonable accommodation process and could result in a reduced separation if granted. The requests are considered on a case-by-case basis by the Development Services Director. The decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission and City Council.
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 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, whereas 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.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct impact on the City’s budget to adopt the ordinance. The proposed regulations may reduce calls for service to the Murrieta Fire Department and Murrieta Police Department by establishing requirements that ensure sober living homes are operated in a manner that protects the health, safety, and welfare of sober living home residents, and indirectly the neighborhoods in which they are located.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 624-25
2. Planning Commission Resolution