Download Powerpoint

TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING/
GROUP HOME
COMPLAINT
INVESTIGATION
7/08
Transitional Housing/Group Home
Complaint Investigation
Our Goals
Elimination of dangerous and/or unsafe or
substandard rental housing conditions.
Elimination of nuisance and/or criminal
activity attendant to these rental properties.
Achieve compliance with Conditional Use
Permit requirements where applicable (e.g.,
parolee housing ordinance).
Our Goals – cont.
Ensure properties are brought into
compliance with the Riverside Municipal
Code by correcting all code violations; to the
extent such enforcement is not otherwise
pre-empted by state or federal law.
Our Goals – cont.


Ensure that the applicable state licensing
agency (e.g., Community Care Licensing
Division of the Department of Social
Services, Department of Alcohol & Drug
Programs, etc.) maintains proper oversight
and ensures compliance with the terms of
the license for the facility.
Ensure that the Division of Adult Parole
Operations of CDCR places its paroled sex
offenders in compliance with Penal Code
sections 3003 and 3003.5.
Our Goals – cont.


Ensure that we distinguish legitimate “sober
living homes” from “boarding houses”
masquerading as sober living homes.
Ensure proper and appropriate regulation of
the use and occupancy of single-family rental
properties throughout the city in order to
preserve the residential character of the
neighborhood.
The Spin
Overview:
The “typical” complaint
WAY TOO many people in that house - Gotta be
ILLEGAL Dopers Molesters
DO SOMETHING !!!


The owner is renting single
ROOMS and does not live on the property.
The renters are extra
looking…..
sleazy
The Initial Complaint




Frequently triggered by a perception that there
are too many residents so the residency must be
illegal.
Often salted with emotional buzz words like “sixpack,” “halfway house,” “drug house,” “parolee
home,” and phrases such as “they’re having
meetings,” and “they come and go at all hours.”
Usually long on conclusions and short on facts.
Police calls-for-service may be minimal.
Labels are
misleading,
often selfserving, and
usually wrong.
Municipal
actions and
investigations
must be
conducted and
documented
carefully and
thoroughly.
The Typical Scam



Single-family residence rented out by an
owner who does not live in the City, let
alone the County.
Owner believes they are leasing the house
to a single family when in fact the lessee
then rents to 10 – 20 individual persons
and charges each person $400 –
500/month.
Alternatively, the owner purchases one or
more homes as “owner-occupied” and
then stuffs each home with 10 – 20
individual renters.
The Typical Scam – cont.
Frequently, there are substandard
living conditions and/or illegal
construction/room conversions.
 None of the individual renters are
recovering from alcoholism or drug
abuse.
 Owner or “straw lessee” calls it a
“sober living home” to evade local
regulation!

Investigation Focus








Actual ownership of the property
Actual possession/control of the property
WHO lives there and WHY
Licenses? CUP?
Maximum legal occupancy count/range
Whether a state license is required
Nature & scope of criminal activity
Nature & scope of code violations
Why?

You “can’t tell the
PLAYERS
without a program.”
The investigation focus cuts through the
chaos of the complaint and frames the particular
“group home” problem into organized “elements” for
investigation that will lead to a definitive analysis and
accurate identification of the property’s use which, in
turn, will lead to an effective enforcement solution.
The “group home” players typically fall
within one of three distinct categories:
1. Homes subject to state licensing
2. Legitimate sober living homes
3. Homes not subject to state licensing and
whose occupants are not within a protected
class (i.e., disabled). These are the problem
homes and they are subject to local regulation.
Homes Subject to State Licensing



Abuse Recovery/Treatment facility (Cal. Health &
Saf. Code sections 11834.20--11834.25)
Residential care facilities (Cal. Health & Saf. Code
section 1566.3)
Adult recovery maintenance facilities (Cal. SB 992)


These homes are not subject to local regulations relating to
zoning (i.e., CUPs), business taxation, or licensing if serving six
or fewer residents.
These homes are subject to local regulation that applies to
residential use of property in the same zone.
CALIFORNIA AB 2184

Amends Cal. Health & Saf. Code section 1566.3(d)-- This
section shall not be construed to prohibit the application to a
residential care facility of any local ordinance that deals with
health and safety, building standards, environmental impact
standards, or any other matter within the jurisdiction of a local
public entity if the ordinance does not distinguish residential
care facilities which serve six or fewer persons from other
family dwellings of the same type in the same zone and if the
ordinance does not distinguish residents of the residential care
facilities from persons who reside in other family dwellings of
the same type in the same zone. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the ability of a local public entity to fully
enforce a local ordinance, including, but not limited to, the
imposition of fines and other penalties associated with
violations of local ordinances covered by this section.
CALIFORNIA AB 2184



Effective January 1, 2007
Clarifies existing law—as long as the local ordinance
does not treat the residents of a state-licensed group
home or the use of that property any differently from
the Joneses next door or the Smiths across the street;
the ordinance is fully enforceable.
A common perception held by the public, some local
governments, and some courts is that the mere
residency of six or fewer, unrelated persons or the
operation of a licensed home for six or fewer persons
somehow confers a “King’s X” status and makes the
property off-limits to local regulation. That perception
is wrong.
Legitimate Sober Living Home

Not subject to local zoning, business taxation or
licensing regulations.

Cal. Gov. Code section 12955 (FEHA) --- “It shall
be unlawful…(l) to discriminate through public or
private land use practices, decisions, and
authorizations because of … disability ….
Discrimination includes, … zoning laws, denial of
use permits,… that make housing opportunities
unavailable.”
Legitimate Sober Living Home
– cont.
U.S.C. §3601, et seq. (Fair Housing
Amendments Act – FHAA)
 41 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. (Americans
with Disabilities Act – ADA)
 29 U.S.C. §§504 and 706(8)(C)(iii)
(Rehabilitation Act)
 42
What is a Legitimate “Sober Living
Home”?
There is no definition under state or
federal law.
 At this point, the local agencies are left to
develop their own definition compliant with
state and federal disability discrimination
laws.

Sober Living Homes

Typically, the use of a single family
residence by a group of recovering addicts
and/or alcoholics choosing to live in a
cooperative living arrangement and in an
alcohol/drug free environment to maintain
sobriety and stay clean.
Characteristics of Legitimate
Sober Living Homes








Democratic, self-governing or house manager
Zero tolerance of alcohol/drug use by residents
Each resident is in recovery and participating in
NA or AA program
AA or NA meetings on-site are permissible
Residents legally deemed “disabled”
Not subject to state licensing
No “Title 9” services permitted on-site
Regular, random drug testing
CALIFORNIA AB 724 (Benoit)
Sponsored by the City of Riverside
 Introduced February 22, 2007
 Two-year bill
 Passed Assembly 73-1, pending in
California State Senate Health Committee

California Assembly Bill 724


The purpose of this section is to provide a definition of a
“sober living home” so as to give both those purporting to
operate these facilities and local code and law
enforcement agencies the ability to determine whether
residences housing former drug and alcohol abusers are
exempt from local regulation or exercise of local police
powers.
“Sober living home” means a residential property that is
operated as a cooperative living arrangement to provide
an alcohol and drug-free environment for persons
recovering from alcoholism or drug abuse, or both, who
seek a living environment in which to remain clean and
sober, and that satisfies all of the following requirements:
California AB 724 – cont.



Residents of the facility, including live-in managers,
operators, or owners, are living a sober lifestyle.
Residents actively participate in legitimate programs,
including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or
Narcotics Anonymous programs, and maintain current
records of meeting attendance.
Owners, managers, operators, and residents observe
and promote a zero tolerance policy regarding the
consumption or possession of alcohol or controlled
substances, except for prescription medications obtained
and used under direct medical supervision.
The
observation and promotion of this policy may take into
account demonstrable efforts made by residents to
respond to, and prevent additional violations of, the
policy.
California AB 724 – cont.

Owners, managers, operators, and residents do
not provide onsite any of the following services,
as they are defined in paragraph (6) of
subdivision (a) of Section 10501 of Title 9 of the
California Code of Regulations:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Detoxification.
Educational counseling.
Individual or group counseling sessions.
Treatment or recovery planning.
California AB 724 – cont.


The number of residents who are subject to the
sex offender registration requirements of Section
290 of the Cal. Penal Code does not exceed the
limit set forth in Section 3003.5 of the Cal. Penal
Code and does not violate the distance
provisions set forth in Section 3003 of the Cal.
Penal Code.
Residents do not require nonmedical care or
supervision, as those terms are defined in Cal.
Health & Saf. Code section 1503.5 and in Title
22 of the California Code of Regulations.
California AB 724 – cont.


Owners, managers, operators, and residents
ensure that the property and its use comply with
applicable state and local law.
A residence housing those purporting to be
recovering from drug and alcohol abuse shall be
presumed to be a sober living home if the
residence has been certified, registered, or
approved by a recognized nonprofit organization
that provides a credible quality assurance
service for applicants or members.
California AB 724 – cont.
A sober living home shall be exempt from
licensure under Chapter 7.5 (commencing
with Cal. Health & Saf. Code section
11834.01).
 Nothing in this section shall be construed
to prohibit minor children who are
dependents of a resident of the facility
from also residing in the facility.

Flophouse/Boarding House

IF the operation of a single family residence as a
“group home” is:
 NOT
licensed by the state; or
 NOT subject to licensing by the state;
 NOT a legitimate sober living home.
THEN the operation is a boarding or rooming
type house (i.e., a “flophouse”) that is
subject to local regulation including zoning
laws and treatment as a business operation.
86 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 30 (2003)
“A city may prohibit, limit or regulate the
operation of a boarding house or rooming house
business in a single family home located in a low
density residential (R-1) zone, where boarding
house or rooming house is defined as a residence
or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein three or
more rooms, with or without individual or group
cooking facilities, are rented to individuals under
separate rental agreements or leases, either written
or oral, whether or not an owner, agent or rental
manager is in residence, in order to preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood.”
Flophouse/Boarding House
• The investigation, if complete, will
determine whether the subject “group
home” is a facility subject to state
licensing; a legitimate sober living home;
or a flophouse that can be regulated
by ordinance.
• If you don’t know, the investigation is
incomplete.
CUTTING THROUGH THE
CHAOS
of the Complaint requires:
•Assembling an investigation team.
•Understanding the different types of
occupancies – state-licensed group home,
sober living home, parolee home or
boarding house and the laws/regulations
applicable to each one.
•Developing a complaint investigation and
enforcement process and protocol.
The Investigation Team

Success requires a focused, collaborative
approach of municipal departments:
 City Attorney
 Police
 Fire
 Code
Enforcement
 Building & Safety
 Planning
Investigation Overview






Gather background information
Parole/Probation compliance check
Joint inspection of the “group home” property
Follow-up interviews
Re-inspection for compliance with municipal
code (refer state law violations to state
agencies)
Prepare occupancy inspection reports
Investigation Tips
Look for these conditions
(Is the claim of a SLH legitimate?)






Whether the residents are “welcoming” or “going
over the fence” upon your arrival
Overcrowding (UHC §503.2 Floor Area)
All residents are recovering from alcoholism or
drug abuse
“House rules”—particularly for alcohol and drug
testing
Use of pre-admission screening questionnaires
(“why are you here?” focus)
Resident manager or peer control
Conditions Cont’d





Membership in recognized sober living
organizations
Living arrangement agreements or rental
contracts
Presence of alcohol, drugs, paraphernalia (be
alert to trash)
Traffic flow in and out of the residence–
particularly Friday and Saturday nights (most
frequent occurrence of relapse)
Nighttime hours– when does house shut down
for the night?
Conditions Cont’d




Drug testing kits (i.e., “First Step 5-panel”),
alcohol test kits (saliva)
Drug test records (if not self test, where are tests
sent for results?)
Police calls for service
Code enforcement history
Representative
Substandard Conditions
As is the case with
vacant board-ups, a
lack of utilities
(water & power) will
not deter occupants
of “group homes”
Be alert to other
code violations
Until your investigation
proves otherwise, the term
“Sober Living Home”
is just a self-serving label.
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS

State licensed group homes:
 Overconcentration
limits are generally
regulated by State law.
 Examples under California State law:
 Foster
family homes, residential care facilities
for the elderly or transitional shelter care
facilities – no distance separation requirements.
 24-hour group homes for minor children, adult
community care, social rehabilitation, mentally
or physically disordered, family care home –
distance separation of 300 feet from another
group home.
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS

State licensed group homes:
 Examples
under California State law:
care facilities – distance separation
of 300 feet between facilities
 Facilities for terminally ill or catastrophically and
severely disabled – distance separation of 1000
feet between facilities
 Intermediate
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS

Sober Living/Group Homes:
 Overconcentration
limits have generally
been struck down by courts.
 A plaintiff may show discrimination which
would be a violation of the FHAA or ADA in
three ways: (1) intentional discrimination;
(2) discriminatory impact; and (3) a refusal to
make reasonable accommodation.
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Cases:
 County
ordinance, implementing a 1500-foot
spacing requirement between group homes for
disabled adults, found to be facially
discriminatory because the spacing requirement
did not apply to similarly situated non-disabled
adults. Nev. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark County
2007 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 12800 (D. Nev. 2007)
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Cases:
 City
of Coatesville argued that the 500-foot
spacing requirement is necessary to preserve
residential districts, avoid saturation and the
creation of hospital districts. However, the court
said there was no rational basis for imposing a
distance rule on people with disabilities while
allowing those without disabilities to live
wherever they choose. The court affirmed the
decision of the zoning hearing board finding that
the ordinance violated both the FHAA and the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
City of Coatesville v. Zoning Hearing Board
(2000) 48 Pa. D. & C.4th 169.
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS

Cases:
 In
response to neighbor complaints, the City of West
Haven, Connecticut, commenced enforcement of the
City’s existing zoning, building and property
maintenance codes and the State Fire Code against the
Oxford House property.
 The City determined that the Oxford House was a
boarding house because the residents were unrelated.
With that determination Oxford residents, unlike a family
with seven related members, would not be able to live in
any neighborhood with single-family zoning.
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Cases:
 Oxford
House requested, as a reasonable
accommodation, pursuant to the FHAA, that the
City of West Haven treat Oxford House as a
single-family dwelling and permit it to remain.
 The City of West Haven’s denial of a requested
accommodation was discriminatory because the
benefits to the residents clearly outweighed the
City’s administrative burdens. Tsombanidis v.
City of West Haven 180 F.Supp.2d 262 (D.
Conn. 2001)
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Cases:
 City
Zoning Code restricts group homes from
locating within 1,000 feet of one another.
 Court ordered summary judgment for plaintiff
and against defendant City finding that the City
violated FHAA by failing to reasonably
accommodate plaintiff corporation and allow the
corporation to locate the group home within
1,000 feet of another group home by granting a
special use permit. United States v. City of
Chicago Heights 161 F.Supp.2d 819 (N.D. Ill.
2001)
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Cases:
City
ordinance permitting group homes
without qualification if the homes are not
within 2500 feet of one another, or less
than 2500 feet from another home with a
variance, did not provide a reasonable
accommodation. Oconomowoc
Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of
Milwaukee 300 F.3d 775 (7th. Cir. Wis.
2002)
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Cases:
 Plymouth
Neighborhood Church Foundation
purchased an abandoned 140-bed nursing
home, intending to convert the space into the
“Lydia House,” a supportive housing facility of
40 efficiency apartments designed as
permanent homes for adult men and women,
who are homeless or living in temporary shelters
and are disabled. The location of Lydia House
required a conditional use permit, a waiver of
the ¼ mile spacing distance from other facilities
of that type, and a variance because Lydia
House would be serving more than 32 residents.
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Cases:
 Even
though at least 7 facilities of the type
covered by the spacing requirements existed
within ¼ mile of the Lydia House, the City of
Minneapolis granted a spacing waiver of the ¼
mile requirement, a conditional use permit and a
maximum occupancy variance to respondent
foundation and appellant citizens appealed. The
appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of
summary judgment to the foundation, holding
that Minneapolis’s grant of the waiver, permit,
and variance was reasonable. Citizens for a
Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational
Church (2003) 672 N.W.2d 13.
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Cases:
Group
home provider awarded $331,928
in damages because City failed to grant
reasonable accommodations when
provider requested a certificate of
occupancy to operate homes at three
addresses with 4 persons each in a zone
which required a distance of ½ mile
between group homes. Developmental
Servs. Of Neb. V. City of Lincoln, 504
F.Supp.2d 714 (D. Neb. 2007)
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Exceptions:
City
ordinance, requiring a 500-foot
distance between group homes, was held
to be legitimate and City did not violate
state and federal laws prohibiting
discrimination against people with
disabilities. Moretha Harding. et al. v. City
of Toledo 433 F.Supp.2d 867 (N.D. Ohio,
2006)
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Exceptions:
 In Avalon
Residential Care Homes, Inc. v. City of
Dallas 130 F.Supp.2d 833 (N.D. Texas, 2000),
the court granted summary judgment to City on
plaintiff’s equal protection claim and FHA claim
that City’s ordinance made housing unavailable
on the basis of handicap. Summary judgment
was denied with respect to plaintiff’s FHA
reasonable accommodation claim, as well as
City’s claim that plaintiff violated its zoning
regulations.
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS
 Exceptions:
 The
court stated at page 840:
 “….we do not address whether an appropriate
dispersal requirement is 1000 feet, 600 feet, or
200 feet. Instead, these questions are better
addressed by the City on a case-by-case basis.
For this reason we inquire into the City’s
willingness to interpret its zoning laws in a
flexible manner so as to meet the needs of
handicapped individuals. In order words, does
the City ordinance provide handicapped persons
a reasonable accommodation?
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS

Parolee/Sex Offender Housing:
 A person
released on parole for a violation of
Penal Code section 288 or 288.5 whom the
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation determines poses a high risk
to the public shall not be placed or reside,
for the duration of his/her parole, within ½
mile of any public or private school including
any or all of kindergarten and grades 1 to
12, inclusive. [Cal. Penal Code section
3003]
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS

Parolee/Sex Offender Housing:
 A parolee
who is a PC 290 registrant cannot
reside with another PC 290 registrant in ANY
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, unless they
are related or married, or the residence is a
state-licensed group home serving six or
less residents. [Cal. Penal Code section
3003.5; 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.199 (2006)]
OVERCONCENTRATION
LIMITS

Parolee/Sex Offender Housing:
 A parolee
who is a PC 290 registrant cannot
reside within 2000 feet of any public or
private school, or park where children
regularly gather. [Cal. Penal Code section
3003.5]
 Cal. Penal Code section 3003.5 does not
prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting
local ordinances that further restrict the
residency of PC 290 registrants.
Enforcement Overview
Prepare and serve Administrative Civil
Penalties (ACP) Notice & Order*
 Prepare Hearing packet
 Conduct pre-hearing witness review
 Present case at ACP hearing
 Prepare for judicial review (i.e., appeal
pursuant to Cal. CCP §1094.6)

* or other appropriate notice or pleading depending upon the
requirements of the administrative or legal remedy sought.
Recommendations





Investigate “group home” complaints thoroughly.
Determine actual nature of the use and occupancy
of the property investigated as a “group home.”
Nature of the property’s use determines the legality
of the use and identifies enforcement options.
Update your zoning code to define a legitimate
“sober living home.”
Update your zoning code’s regulation of boarding
houses to conform to the Attorney General’s recent
opinion.
Recommendations – cont.



Adopt/enforce an ordinance which regulates
parolee homes (e.g., MCUP required for 2 or
more parolees up to 6, full CUP required for 7 or
more parolees).
Tour legitimate sober living homes and engage
the regional sober living coalitions to assist you
in the identification of legitimate homes.
Consider issuance of legislative subpoenas (Cal.
Gov. Code §37104, et seq.) for relevant
documents re: ownership and occupancy from
owner, lessee, lender, et al.
Recommendations – cont.




Partner with your District Attorney to investigate and
prosecute lending fraud associated with the acquisition of
some of these homes.
Partner with your U.S. Attorney and/or District Attorney to
investigate and prosecute tax fraud associated with the
operation of some of these homes.
Take the time to educate your community on the limits of
a city’s ability to regulate state-licensed group homes of
six or less as well as legitimate sober living homes.
Engage your regional and local parole administrators
regarding their placement and housing of parolees in
general and sex offenders in particular
Recommendations – cont.



Partner with Parole to establish a Police and
Corrections (P.A.C.) Team in your community to
reduce crime, reduce the rate of recidivism and
provide
intervention/re-entry
services
to
parolees and probationers.
Partner with Parole to establish a city or regional
Parolee Multi-Service Center.
Start thinking regionally as to how we reintegrate
parolees back into our communities, reduce the
recidivism rate and reduce the victimization of
our residents.
Something to Consider. . . .







97% of inmates in California’s prisons will be eligible
for parole.
Currently, 60,000 California inmates are serving the
final 0-3 years of their sentences.
⅔ of those inmates being released have a substance
abuse problem.
There are presently 170,000 parolees in California.
70% are re-arrested within 3 years of release; the
highest recidivism rate in the country.
These offenders are coming back to our cities and
towns whether they are rehabilitated or not.
We have to be prepared to protect our citizens and
assist in their successful re-entry to our
communities.
ATTACHMENTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
Summary of Residential Occupancy
Regulations under California State law
and Riverside Municipal Code
California Legislative Counsel Opinion
re: Sober Living Homes (6/18/97)
AB 724 (amended 5/15/07)
Excerpts from City of Riverside’s New
Zoning Code