HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5 - GENP-0327-2017 (Zoning Regulations Update)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 20, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Zoning Regulations Update – Draft White Paper for Cannabis Regulations,
Effectiveness of 2012 Alcohol Outlet Regulations, Table 9 (Uses Allowed Per
Zone) follow up review, Tentative Project Schedule, and Zoning Regulations
Director Actions and Use Permit Requirements
Item #1 - Draft White Paper: Cannabis Regulations
Attached to this memorandum is a draft of the Cannabis White Paper, this white paper is a draft as
it is still under review by staff and additional changes may be made to the document prior to the
final version (Attachment 1).
Staff has been meeting with various stakeholders as well as with the public regarding potential
Cannabis Regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo. A public workshop was held on October
23, 2017 in the Community Room at the San Luis Obispo County Public Library which included
a mediated panel discussion with perspectives on public safety, youth education advocacy, and the
cannabis industry. The questions asked during the panel are the same questions included in the
City’s Open City Hall Survey: https://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/189/Issue_5526. Staff
encourages the Planning Commissioners and members of the public to review and respond to the
questions in the survey.
Information presented during the workshop, as well as links to relevant and related information
can be found at the following websites:
Informational Presentation
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=17202
City Website for more information on Cannabis Regulations
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/cannabis
PC5 - 1
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 2
Item #3 – Effectiveness of the 2012 Alcohol Outlet Regulations
The Draft City Council Memorandum on the effectiveness of the 2012 Alcohol Outlet Regulations
within the Downtown Association Boundary has been provided as Attachment 2. The Draft
Alcohol Outlet Memo has been provided to inform the PC of current trends and regulations
associated with alcohol outlets downtown that have been enacted to prevent restaurants from
transforming, or “morphing,” into bars late in the evening. The 2012 Amendments also included a
Deemed Approved Ordinance and enhanced standard conditions of approval for late night alcohol
uses and night clubs. The purpose of Land Use Element Program 4.321 was to review the
effectiveness of these Alcohol Amendments in helping foster a safe late night environment
downtown.
Item #4 – Table 9 (Allowed Uses per Zone) Follow up review
On August 23, 2017, the PC reviewed Table 9 (Uses Allowed per Zone) and the draft Land Use
classifications. At the hearing the PC indicated that additional information was necessary to further
evaluate specific land uses, such as alcohol outlets (as discussed above), High Occupancy
Residential standards, Satellite Classrooms, Supportive and/or Transitional Housing, and Adult
Entertainment.
High Occupancy Regulations – this was previously discussed at the October 25, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting. The City Attorney’s office is reviewing these Regulations in more detail to
ensure consistency with State Law and provisions for enforceability. Any proposed modifications
to the Regulations will be evaluated after the study is completed by the City Attorney.
Satellite Classrooms – On May 6, 2003 the City Council provided a recommendation to staff to
combine Satellite Classrooms with the Specialized Education/training classification. On June 17,
2003, the agenda packet recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 1438 included Satellite
Classrooms regulated per zone identical to Specialized Education/training in which required a PC
use permit in the O zone, the A/D designation in the C-C and C-D zones, and allowed within the
C-R, C-S, and M zones. The final adopted Ordinance No. 1438 does not permit Satellite
Classrooms within any zone. The meeting minutes from the June 17, 2003 hearing do not include
any indication as to why there was this modification. The omission of Satellite Classrooms from
the final Ordinance seems to be in error given the City Council direction. There is no Ordinance
prohibiting Satellite Classrooms. Staff suggests keeping with this previous Council direction to
combine the Satellite Classrooms use with Specialized Education to be reclassified as Instructional
Services
Supportive and/or Transitional Housing – Additional information has been provided summarizing
California statutes and case law regarding planning and zoning requirements applicable to group
homes and supportive housing that impose limitations on local governments beyond those imposed
by the federal Fair Housing Act and state Fair Employment and Housing Act. Section II.B,
describes the protections from land use regulations for small facilities serving six or fewer
1 General Plan Land Use Element 4.32: The City shall incorporate into its Zoning Regulations specific criteria for
evaluating use permits for bard/taverns, night clubs, and late night drinking establishments.
PC5 - 2
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 3
residents versus facilities serving more than six residents (Attachment 3, Select California Laws
Relating to Residential Recovery Facilities and Group Homes). Table 9 as provided at the August
23, 2017 PC hearing was consistent with these California statutes and case law, no additional
changes are recommended at this time.
Adult Entertainment – The City’s Attorney’s Office is still evaluating the case law and land use
regulations for this use. Once the Attorney’s Office has completed their review staff will amend
Table 9, if necessary to provide a recommendation within the draft ordinance.
Item #5 - Tentative Schedule for Zoning Regulations Update
A tentative schedule has been provided by MIG to identify the upcoming work efforts for the
Zoning Regulations Update (Attachment 4). The schedule is also available on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-
zoning/zoning/zoning-regulations-update.
Item #6 - Overview of Director Action and Use Permit Requirements
The Zoning Regulations include several sections and references to discretionary review procedures
for various project types that are not included in Table 9 (Uses Allowed per Zone). Staff has
identified approximately 94 references to additional review procedures that have been organized
in the following table by projects subject to Director’s Action/Approval, Administrative Use
Permits, and Planning Commission Use Permits.
This list has been provided as part of this memorandum to inform the Planning Commission (PC)
that some of these items may be re-evaluated or re-organized as part of the Zoning Regulations
Update for ease of navigation intended to provide simplicity and transparency for the public, staff,
and users of the regulations. At this time no action is necessary by the PC, additional review of
these sections will be provided upon review of the draft regulations at future meetings.
ID# Section Number Director Action/Approval
1 17.08.010C.1 Temporary real estate sales office in Tract
2 17.08.020 Sales of Christmas trees and other agricultural products.
3 17.08.072E.3 Mixed-use hours of operation
4 17.14.020D Exceptions for non-conforming historic structures
5 17.14.020E.1 Conforming additions to non-conforming structures
6 17.16.020D.9 Tandem parking for residences
7 17.16.040 Satellite antennae height exceptions
8 17.16.050F Fence height exceptions
9 17.16.060G Bicycle & motorcycle parking reductions
10 17.16.060H.7f Downtown residential parking reductions
11 17.16.060J Parking requirements for non-listed uses
PC5 - 3
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 4
12 17.16.060*L.2b Parking requirements for large additions to non-conforming uses
13 17.16.070B Parking and driveway design exceptions
14 17.16.090 Exceptions to outdoor screening requirements
15 17.21.020D.2 Guest quarters
16 17.22.010C Interpretation of use listing
17 17.23.040F Baseball field light intensity
18 17.23.060 Temporary lighting
19 17.23.080 Accent lighting
20 17.23.080 Upgrades to outdoor lights advertising signs (billboards)
21 17.36.030B Uses allowed by public school tenant permit
22 17.57.040B Interpretation of use listing (AOZ)
23 17.61.030 Requests for reasonable accommodations
24 17.98.080 Public art on private property
ID# Section Number Administrative Use Permit
25 17.08.010 Temporary land uses
26 17.08.010C.2b Mobile home as temporary construction office (off-site)
27 17.08.010C.6 Education Conferences in student housing
28 17.08.010C.7 Parades/carnivals on private property
29 17.08.020B Other outdoor sales
30 17.08.040 Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcohol
31 17.08.060 Electronic game amusement centers
32 17.08.072F Mixed-use project subject to use permits
33 17.08.080 Unmanned public utility structures
34 17.08.090B.1 Home occupation that is opposed by neighbors
35 17.08.100B.2 Day care facilities for 7 to 12 clients
36 17.08.100B.3 Day care facilities more than 12 clients
37 17.08.100E Exceptions to performance standards for day care facilities
38 17.08.110 Homeless shelters in close proximity to another homeless shelter
39 17.08.140C Exceptions to Homestay parking requirements
40 17.10.020B.2 Replacement of a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use
41 17.10.020C Modifications to non-conforming uses
42 17.12.020A Exception for a non-conforming lot merger
43 17.14.020E.2 Setback reductions for minor additions to non-conforming structures
44 17.16.010A.2a Exceptions to density slop calculations
45 17.16.020D.6 Trash enclosures within setbacks subject to ARC approval
46 17.16.020E.2a Discretionary exceptions to yard requirements
47 17.16.025G.4 Discretionary exceptions to creek setback requirements
48 17.16.040 Table 5.5 Building height exceptions for specific zones
49 17.16.060B Shared parking reduction
PC5 - 4
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 5
50 17.16.060C Mixed-use parking reduction
51 17.16.060D Mechanical Parking lifts
52 17.16.060E Trip Reduction Plans
53 17.16.060F Off-site parking requirements
54 17.16.060H.7b Off-site parking requirements for downtown
55 17.16.060L Tandem parking for non-residential development
56 17.16.110E.2 Dish-type satellite antenna exceptions
57 17.16.110F Satellite antenna exceptions in open space
58 17.16.120D Wireless telecommunication facilities
59 17.16.120F.16 Nuisance of telecommunication facilities
60 17.16.120H Revocation of a use permit for telecommunication facilities
61 17.17.050 Exceptions for front yard paving requirements
62 17.22 Notes 1 Residential conversion to non-residential use
63 17.22 Notes 2 Two or more residential dwellings in the R-1 zone
64 17.22 Notes 3 Exceptions to limitations on retail floor area requirements
65 17.22 Notes 6 Parking as a principal use
66 17.22 Notes 10 Exceptions to limitations on grocery store floor area requirements
67 17.23.050 Exceptions to parking lot lights subject to ARC approval
68 17.24.020C 35-foot height exception in the R-1 zone
69 17.34.020C 35-foot height exception in the Office zone
70 17.36.030C Administrative approval for uses associated with Public Schools
71 17.42.020C.2 Building heights greater than 60 feet in downtown
72 17.42.020G Installation of new driveway approaches downtown
73 17.50.100 Amendment of final development plans
74 17.56.010A New uses within the Special Considerations Overlay
75 17.57.040A.2 Exceptions to uses and non-residential density within the AOZ
76 17.72.020B.2 Revocation of Use Permit upon substantiated complaint
77 17.86.050 Downtown housing conversions to non-residential
78 17.93.040 Establishment of a High Occupancy use
ID# Section Number Planning Commission Use Permit
79 17.08.115 Safe parking establishments
80 17.16.030 Exceptions to lot coverage requirements
81 17.16.060H.7f Downtown residential parking reductions
82 17.19.080 Revocation of a PC use permit
83 17.22 Notes 6 Parking as a principal use
84 17.22 Notes 10 Exceptions to limitations on groceries floor area
85 17.36.030D Uses allowed with PC Approval within Public Schools
86 17.40.020I Exception to retail floor area limitations
87 17.42.020C.1f Exceptions to performance standards
PC5 - 5
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 6
88 17.42.020C.2 Exceptions for building height of up to 75 feet in downtown
89 17.42.020J Exception to retail floor area limitations
90 17.50.100B & D Amendment of final development plans
91 17.53.020 Specific areas within Special Focus Overlay
92 17.74.060 Adoption of building setback lines from the public right-of-way
93 17.80.060 General Plan amendments
94 17.86.060 Downtown housing conversions exceptions
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft White Paper - Cannabis
2. Effectiveness of the 2012 Alcohol Outlet Regulations Memorandum
3. Select California Laws Relating to Residential Recovery Facilities and Group Homes
4. Tentative Schedule of Zoning Regulation Update
PC5 - 6
White Paper:
Case Studies in Local
Adult‐Use and Medical
Marijuana Regulation
Introduction
In 2016. California voters passed Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which legalized
marijuana use and possession for adults in the State. The San Luis Obispo City Council passed Ordinance
No. 1633 in March 2017 banning marijuana uses to give City staff time to develop a well-informed
regulatory approach in response to AUMA (now referred to as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis
Regulation and Safety Act, or MAUCRSA).1 Ordinance No. 1633 reaffirmed the City’s prohibition of all
commercial and industrial recreational marijuana uses, activities, and operations, except as permitted
under state laws. The City Council also directed staff to return to Council with recommended changes to
the City’s Municipal Code after monitoring state and federal developments and conducting public
outreach.2
The states of Colorado, Washington, and Oregon legalized nonmedical adult use and possession of
marijuana in 2012, 2012, and 2014, respectively. As in California, these state laws allow local
jurisdictions to decide what is allowed in their municipalities. Within these states, the cities of Denver,
Seattle, and Portland have enacted relatively more permissive local marijuana legislation than other
cities in their states. This paper examines how these cities—from a zoning perspective—have regulated
adult use and medical marijuana since legalization, the impacts of these regulations, and lessons
learned. While Denver has extensively analyzed the impacts of its land use regulations (among other
impacts), Seattle and Portland have not (in part because Washington only recently legalized adult-use
marijuana); this paper addresses all three cities to the extent information is available. Implications of
these types of regulations as they may apply to the City’s zoning regulations and considerations for San
Luis Obispo are presented at the end of this paper.
While Colorado, Washington, and Oregon can provide important lessons for California cities, it is
important to reiterate that legalizing adult-use marijuana at the state level is still too new to the United
States to draw any lasting or concrete conclusions from. This paper also does not consider the
1 While the State now officially uses the term cannabis, this paper will continue to use the term marijuana since that is the term
used in current City regulations.
2 City of San Luis Obispo. March, 14 2017. “Council Agenda Report: Marijuana Regulation.”
Attachment 1
PC5 - 7
2 | Page
sustainability, enforcement/inspections, public education and communication, and taxes and local
revenue implications of legalization, although these are important considerations for San Luis Obispo
when considering modifying marijuana-related regulations moving forward.
California Regulatory Framework
The City of San Luis Obispo has a variety of options for regulating adult-use of marijuana based on state
law. Local jurisdictions have complete flexibility to decide whether to allow any type of commercial
marijuana business and outdoor personal cultivation. These can be regulated through local land use,
types of business licenses, environmental regulation, etc. Local jurisdictions cannot ban outright indoor
personal cultivation nor use in private locations. Under state law, cannabis businesses are not allowed to
locate within 600 feet of a school, day care center, or youth center; local jurisdictions can establish
greater distancing requirements. A more detailed explanation of what MAUCRSA makes legal and what
cities are allowed and not allowed to regulate are included in the March 14, 2017 Council Agenda
Report: Marijuana Regulation prepared by City staff.
Two major changes to state regulation in relation to adult-use of marijuana have occurred since staff
prepared the March 2017 Council Agenda Report. On June 27, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill
No. 94, which repeals the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) and includes certain
provisions of MCRSA in the licensing provisions of AUMA, all together called the Medicinal and Adult-
Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (as noted above, MAUCRSA). The bill lays out 20 types of
business licenses which fall into six categories: cultivation, manufacturing, laboratory testing, deliveries,
retail sales, and distribution. In addition, microbusiness that vertically integrate one or more activities
are permitted. Each category is either A, for adult-use, or M, for medical cannabis activity. MAUCRSA
also changes building and fire safety standards for marijuana cultivators and how the state determines
whether an application is compliant with local authorization. 3
Assembly Bill 133, signed September 16, 2017, allows marijuana businesses with different license types
to operate at a single location. The bill also changes some marijuana business definitions and again how
the State determines whether an application is compliant with local authorization.4
3 California Senate Bill 94 Cannabis: medicinal and adult use. 2017.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB94
4 California Assembly Bill 133, Committee on Budget. Cannabis Regulation. 2017.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB133.
Attachment 1
PC5 - 8
3 | Page
Case Study: Denver, Colorado
Colorado Regulatory Framework
Colorado voters legalized medical marijuana in 2000, but was it was not widely commercially available
until 2010. In 2012, Amendment 64 legalized adult (21 and older) use and possession of marijuana, as
well as the retail sale, cultivation, and testing of marijuana. As in California, Colorado law allows local
jurisdictions to decide what marijuana businesses to allow in their jurisdictions. In addition, they can
impose place/time and land use restrictions on marijuana businesses.5 As of October 2016, only 21% of
local jurisdictions in Colorado allowed both medical and retail marijuana facilities.6
Denver Regulatory Framework
The City of Denver primarily regulates marijuana businesses using licensing laws. Marijuana businesses
are not specifically addressed in zoning regulations. Instead, zoning regulations align the business type
with a land use category (see Figure 1). Denver requires marijuana business owners to get a zoning use
permit when submitting an application for a license.
Figure 1: Denver’s marijuana business license types and corresponding zoning land uses.
Impacts
In general, recreational marijuana stores in Colorado are concentrated in Denver. The stores in Denver
account for 37% of stores statewide even though Denver houses only 12% of the state’s population.7 As
of October 2016, 1,091 marijuana business licenses had been issued for 481 locations, with medical
5 Pramuk, Clare. December 2016. “Issue Brief: Marijuana Regulation in Colorado.” A Legislative Council Staff Publication.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/16-36_issue_brief_on_marijuana_law.pdf
6 City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
7 Denver Office of Children’s Affairs. October 2016. “Youth Prevention and Education.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium.
Attachment 1
PC5 - 9
4 | Page
grow making up the highest proportion at 35% and retail grow and medical storefront coming in close in
second place at close to 18% (see Figure 2).8
Figure 2: Active Denver marijuana business licenses by type, October 2016
Impact: Geographic Distribution
In October 2016, the Denver Office of Economic Development identified two major geographic patterns
in marijuana business locations: 1) a significant portion of marijuana retail businesses are located in low-
to moderate-income neighborhoods and 2) marijuana cultivation business “grows” are concentrated in
industrial/warehouse districts9 in the northern and western portions of the City, possibly because of
existing zoning restrictions and where warehouses in the City are available.10 Error! Reference source
not found. shows a map of marijuana businesses as of October 2016.
Because of these concentrations of marijuana businesses and because few new medical marijuana cards
were being issued, the Denver City Council adopted Bill 16-0912, “The Cap Bill,” in April 2016. The Cap
Bill set an upper limit on the number of distinct marijuana cultivation and sales locations, halted all new
medical marijuana and sales licenses, and prohibited marijuana businesses within 1,000 feet of a school
or residential district. In addition to other procedural recommendations, the bill also requires marijuana
license applicants to notify neighborhoods if they are moving to or locating in a “saturated”
neighborhood. 11
8 City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
9 City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
10 Denver Office of Economic Development. October 2016. “Economic Impacts & Outcomes.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Impacts-Employee-
Safety.pdf.
11 City and County of Denver. April 18, 2016. “Ordinance No. 16-0291.”
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/723/documents/ORD%2016-0291%2005.01.16.pdf; City and
Attachment 1
PC5 - 10
5 | Page
Figure 3: Map of Denver marijuana facilities and low to modern income residential areas, October 2016.
Impact: Real Estate Market
While several factors have influenced the Denver real estate market since recreational marijuana use
legalization, including a recovering economy and urban revitalization, the Denver Office of Economic
Development believes that marijuana businesses have represented a “significant share of new
commercial leases since legalization.” Since legalization, commercial lease values have doubled and
leases have increased at least 50% or more. The properties used by marijuana businesses are typically
Class “B” and “C” buildings.12
County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf; City and
County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
12 Denver Office of Economic Development. October 2016. “Economic Impacts & Outcomes.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Impacts-Employee-
Safety.pdf.
Attachment 1
PC5 - 11
6 | Page
Impact: Economic Outcomes
As of October 2016, marijuana businesses accounted for less than 1% of Denver’s employment. Average
annual wages in the cannabis industry are a little less than half of Denver’s average as a whole ($34,000
compared to $65,200). In 2016, annual cannabis sales in the City were approximately $500 million,
which on average is $125,000 per employee. Retail marijuana sales make up 55% of total and 70% of tax
revenue from marijuana.13
Figure 4: Marijuana sale revenue in Denver, 2014 – 2016.14
Impact: Crime
Overall, while marijuana-related and marijuana industry-related crimes in Denver increased slightly
between 2012 and 2016, these crimes as a percentage of crime overall in the City decreased. In 2016,
these crimes made up less than 1% of crime overall in the City. Burglaries or attempted burglaries made
up the largest portion of marijuana industry-related crimes at 78% in 2016. Only three reported violent
crimes out of 209 crimes were related to the licensed marijuana industry in 2016.15
The City of Denver issued more tickets for public consumption and fewer for possession of marijuana
between 2012 and 2016, although combined these tickets have decreased (see Figure 5). Driving under
the influence of marijuana has more than doubled since 2013, but only from 33 to 73, but still makes up
less than 3% of DUI and DUIDs in Denver in 2015.16
13 Denver Office of Economic Development. October 2016. “Economic Impacts & Outcomes.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Impacts-Employee-
Safety.pdf.
14 City and County of Denver. 2017. “The Denver Collaborative Approach: Leading the Way in Municipal Marijuana
Management.”
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/782/documents/Collaborative_Approach_PDF.pdf.
15 City and County of Denver. 2017. “The Denver Collaborative Approach: Leading the Way in Municipal Marijuana
Management.”
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/782/documents/Collaborative_Approach_PDF.pdf.
16 City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Measuring the Impacts.” https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Measuring-the-Impacts.pdf.
Attachment 1
PC5 - 12
7 | Page
Figure 5: Public consumption and possession tickets issued from 2012 to 2016 in Denver.
Impact: Environment
The primary environmental impacts of marijuana businesses in Denver have been an increase in
electricity use, especially used for marijuana cultivation, and complaints of odor from cultivation and
manufacturing facilities. Because cultivation and manufacturing facilities are concentrated in the north
and west areas of the City, the odor issue is more prominent in those areas. Marijuana is the fourth
most complained about odor in Denver (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Denver odor concerns by source
Attachment 1
PC5 - 13
8 | Page
To address these odor complaints, in May 2016 Denver passed an odor ordinance that considers odor to
be a public health nuisance under air pollution regulations. It requires the industry types that generate
the most odor complaints—which includes marijuana cultivation and manufacturing businesses—as well
as businesses/households that receive a certain number of complaints, to adopt an “Odor Control
Plan.”17
Lessons Learned
1. Be aware of possible regulatory gaps. Some marijuana uses are not a commercial business but
may need additional regulation, such as caregiver grows, home grows, collectives, and home
extractions.
2. Consider that the marijuana industry, relatively new in the U.S., is evolving. Zoning code policies
or interpretations can be used to fill gaps in policies until more comprehensive approaches are
adopted.
3. Consider possible unintended consequences of impact in low-income neighborhoods or similar
locations where barriers to entry are low.
4. Consider implementing stricter regulations first, then loosening as time goes on.
5. Be aware of potential over-concentration of marijuana-related uses, similar to concerns
associated with liquor establishments.
6. Regulating marijuana uses strictly by business license and not specific zoning regulatory controls
can lead to the over-concentration and odor concerns experienced in Denver. Also, unless a
control procedure is in place, the burden of ensuring adequate distance from schools and parks
(and other identified sensitive uses) might fall to the Finance Department rather that the
Community Development Department.
Case Study: Seattle, Washington
Washington Regulatory Framework
In 2011, the state of Washington legalized use, cultivation, and processing of medical marijuana. In
2012, the state legalized recreational marijuana, requiring all businesses to locate outside of a 1,000-
foot buffer around schools, recreation areas, and public transit centers, and restricting advertising and
signage. In 2015, the state combined the recreational and medical marijuana legislation and allowed
local regulators to reduce buffer zones to between 100 and 1,000 feet.18
17 Denver Department of Environmental Health. October 2016. “Community Health & Safety.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Community-Health-
Safety.pdf
18 City of Seattle, Mayor’s Office of Policy and Innovation. October 2016. “National Roundtable: City of Seattle Cannabis
Legislation.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/National-Roundtable.pdf.
Attachment 1
PC5 - 14
9 | Page
Seattle Regulatory Framework
The City of Seattle primarily regulates marijuana businesses using zoning, categorizing the businesses as
retail sales and services, urban farms, food processing, or light manufacturing. All marijuana businesses
are prohibited from the majority of residential and mixed-use zones. In some zones where marijuana
businesses are permitted, they are restricted to 10,000 square feet or 25,000 square feet, depending on
the category in which the business falls.19 Seattle also prohibits marijuana-related businesses from
locating within 1,000 of schools and playgrounds, and between 250 and 500 feet of other recreational
areas, depending on whether the business is a retail or other establishment; lower distances apply in
downtown zones. See Figure 7 for more information.20 In addition, while two retail stores can locate
within 1,000 feet of each other, a third retail store must be more than 1,000 feet from the other two. 21
Figure 7: Seattle marijuana business buffer and dispersion requirements
Impacts
The City of Seattle has 146 licensed marijuana businesses within its boundaries, which represents 11% of
the state’s retail locations and 8% of the state’s producers and processors. Seattle currently does not
have publicly available data on the land use impacts of marijuana legalization.
19 See slide 39 of City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative Services. October 2016. “Marijuana Regulation through Land Use
and Licensing.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf for more information.
20 City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative Services. October 2016. “Marijuana Regulation through Land Use and Licensing.”
Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf.
21 City of Seattle, Mayor’s Office of Policy and Innovation. October 2016. “National Roundtable: City of Seattle Cannabis
Legislation.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/National-Roundtable.pdf.
Attachment 1
PC5 - 15
10 | Page
Lessons Learned
1. Consider a variety of marijuana and marijuana-related businesses when creating regulations
(including retailers including delivery services, vending machine operators, testing labs,
transporters, use lounges both private and public, and temporary events).
2. As noted above, anticipate the unexpected, as the industry is new and changing.22
Case Study: Portland, Oregon
Oregon Regulatory Framework
In 1998, Oregon legalized medical marijuana cultivation, possession, and use by doctors, but the state
did not create legalized medical dispensaries and a marijuana registry until 2013. In 2014, the state
legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Since that time, Oregon has been slowly phasing in
recreational marijuana. The state first allowed the sale of recreational marijuana at medical dispensaries
in August 2015. Not until October 2016 did the state began licensing recreational marijuana stores.
Under Oregon law, local regulators have control over marijuana sales. According to state law, marijuana
facilities cannot be at the same address as a liquor store, in an area zoned only for residential use
(excepting private producers), or located within 1,000 feet of a public or secondary school.
Portland Regulatory Framework
The City of Portland regulates marijuana facilities through a series of licensing requirements which fall
into the categories of minimum standards, regulatory compliance, and safety and livability. Each
category of marijuana facilities falls into a distinct Portland zoning code category (see Figure 8). In
addition, marijuana dispensaries and retailers must be outside of a 1,000-foot radius around other
dispensaries and retailers and primary and secondary schools, although there are no restrictions relative
to other marijuana facilities.23 To address community concerns about the possible concentration or
saturation of medical marijuana business, the City put in place the following restrictions to regulate
recreational marijuana:
Restricts marijuana businesses from some zones that are not exclusively residential
Requires security system for marijuana businesses
Requires proof of an air filtration system for marijuana businesses to reduce odors24
22 City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative Services. October 2016. “Marijuana Regulation through Land Use and Licensing.”
Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf.
23 City of Portland. “Marijuana Policy Program.” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/619136
24 City of Portland. “Cannabis Policy Center: Portland Cannabis Business Regulations.”
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/622978
Attachment 1
PC5 - 16
11 | Page
Figure 8: Portland zoning code use categorization for marijuana facilities
As an aside, the cities of Eugene and Corvallis, both of which are college towns, have virtually no land
use regulations for marijuana facilities. They have focused instead on taxation and revenue generation.
Corvallis prohibit use in public and prohibits homegrown marijuana in public view.
Impacts
As of October 2016, Portland had 80 medical marijuana dispensaries and 16 recreational businesses. The
majority (11) of these recreational businesses are retailers, with two wholesalers and three producers.25
Portland decision-makers have stated their commitment to changing policies based on a changing
marijuana industry and as informed by the City’s Marijuana Policy Oversight Team.26 As legalization is
relatively new in Portland, the land use impacts have not been identified.
Considerations for the Updated Zoning Regulations
The City of San Luis Obispo has wide discretion for allowing various types of marijuana
businesses. Through the public engagement process, staff and decision-makers will learn of
community desires regarding marijuana regulation. From a land use regulatory perspective, the
City will need to determine which types of uses will be permitted in which zones (if at all), and
whether uses will be allowed by right or require a Director-level or Planning Commission-level
Use Permit.
It may be appropriate and probably necessary to have detailed regulations in Title 5 (Licenses,
Permits, and Regulations) of the Municipal Code that complement the Zoning Regulations. In
effect, marijuana-related businesses might have regulations akin to massage establishments in
terms of land use restrictions and business licensing requirements.
Consideration should be given to over-concentration, if this is a community concern.
The City may elect to include buffering requirements from schools, parks, and other defined
sensitive uses that are greater than the 600-foot standard established by MAUCRSA.
25 City of Portland. October 2016. “Marijuana Policy Program.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management
Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
26 City of Portland. “Marijuana Policy Program.” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/619136
Attachment 1
PC5 - 17
12 | Page
Given the cash nature of marijuana businesses due to financial institutions’ unwillingness to
engage in transactions with these businesses, the Police Department may want to weigh in on
security requirements included in the Zoning Regulations. Alternatively, such requirements
could be included in Title 5.
If the City is concerned about on-site consumption at marijuana businesses and patrons leaving
the businesses under the influence, consider prohibiting on-site consumption at sales locations.
An October 1, 2017 editorial in the Los Angeles Times opined that it is disingenuous for cities to
allow marijuana businesses but then severely limit where smoking can occur (e.g., not in public
places, not in cars, not in multifamily housing developments). Given that San Luis Obispo has
well-defined smoking restrictions for tobacco products, the same might apply to marijuana.
(Note that this is not a land use/zoning issue.)
Understand that some marijuana processing/manufacturing activities involve the use of
explosive materials. This needs to be considered when determining where such businesses can
locate.
The City currently prohibits uses or activities that cause persistent offensive odors to emanate
across property or parcel lines in Chapter 8.22 of the Municipal Code. If the City is interested in
allowing commercial marijuana cultivation or manufacturing, it could consider emulating
Denver’s odor ordinance requiring industries that create odor to create an “Odor Control Plan.”
In addition, require an Odor Control Plan for any cultivation or manufacturing, personal or
commercial, that receives more than five odor complaints in a month.
With regard to personal cultivation, if allowed outdoors, the Zoning Regulations need to be clear
regarding location, plant height, etc. so that they can easily be enforced.
Attachment 1
PC5 - 18
13 | Page
Sources
S.B. 94. California State Legislature, 2017-18 Session, 15 June 2017. “Cannabis: medicinal and adult use.”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB94
City of San Luis Obispo. March, 14 2017. “Council Agenda Report: Marijuana Regulation.”
City and County of Denver. April 18, 2016. “Ordinance No. 16-0291.”
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/723/documents/ORD%2016-
0291%2005.01.16.pdf
City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal, and Land Use.” Presentation for
the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf.
City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Measuring the Impacts.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Measuring-the-Impacts.pdf.
City and County of Denver. October 2016. “The Denver Collaborative Approach: Leading the Way in
Municipal Marijuana Management.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium.
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/782/documents/Collaborative_Approach
_PDF.pdf.
City of Portland. “Cannabis Policy Center: Portland Cannabis Business Regulations.”
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/622978
City of Portland. October 2016. “Marijuana Policy Program.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-
Land-Use.pdf
City of Portland. “Marijuana Policy Program.” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/619136
City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative Services. October 2016. “Marijuana Regulation through Land
Use and Licensing.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium.
https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf.
City of Seattle, Mayor’s Office of Policy and Innovation. October 2016. “National Roundtable: City of
Seattle Cannabis Legislation.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium.
https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/National-Roundtable.pdf.
Colorado Department of Public Safety. March 2016. “Marijuana Legalization in Colorado: Early Findings,
A Report Pursuant to Senate Bill 13-283.”
Attachment 1
PC5 - 19
14 | Page
City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for
the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
Denver Department of Environmental Health. October 2016. “Community Health & Safety.”
Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Community-Health-Safety.pdf
Denver Office of Children’s Affairs. October 2016. “Youth Prevention and Education.” Presentation for
the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Youth-Education-Prevention.pdf
Denver Office of Economic Development. October 2016. “Economic Impacts & Outcomes.” Presentation
for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Impacts-Employee-Safety.pdf.
Pramuk, Clare. December 2016. “Issue Brief: Marijuana Regulation in Colorado.” A Legislative Council
Staff Publication. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/16-36_issue_brief_on_marijuana_law.pdf
State of Oregon. October 2017. “Business Readiness Guidebook for OLCC Marijuana Operations.”
http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/BusinessReadinessGuide_RecreationalMarijuana.p
df
Attachment 1
PC5 - 20
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
December 13, 2017
TO: City Council
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
PREPARED: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner / Jennifer Hooper, Planning Intern
VIA: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 2012 Alcohol Outlet Regulations – Review of Effectiveness
2012 Alcohol Outlet Amendments
Leading up to adoption of the 2012 Alcohol Outlet Regulations, staff collected information and
developed strategies to reduce public safety problems and negative impacts associated with alcohol
outlets. In October 2009, staff presented a study to the Council that correlated police-related
incidents with alcohol outlets, along with several recommendations. The study, conducted by Dr.
Fried Wittman of CLEW Associates, utilized a tool called Alcohol/Drug Sensitive Information
Planning System in a Geographic Information System, or ASIPS/GIS.
On November 16, 2010, staff provided an update to the Council on progress made in exploring
these strategies and initiated a Nightlife Public Safety Assessment. The Nightlife Public Safety
Assessment report was presented to Council in November 2011. Council direction was to bring
forth amendments to the Zoning Regulations that were intended to reduce public safety problems
associated with alcohol outlets. On June 19, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1578
that employed a full spectrum of techniques to address restaurants morphing into bars, including:
1) Elevated the review level for restaurants with late hour alcohol services;
2) Enhanced conditions of approval;
3) Address morphing of restaurants into bars through definitions and enforceable conditions;
4) Established performance standards for existing outlets (deemed approved provisions).
Deemed Approved Ordinance
The Deemed Approved Ordinance applies to existing alcohol serving establishments in operation
prior to the effective date of the Alcohol Outlet Regulations and includes the following standards:
1) That it does not result in adverse effects to the health, peace or safety of persons residing
or working in the surrounding area;
2) That it does not result in jeopardizing or endangering the public health or safety of persons
residing or working in the surrounding area;
3) That it does not result in repeated nuisance activities within the premises or in close
proximity of the premises, including but not limited to disturbance of the peace, illegal
drug activity, public drunkenness, drinking in public, harassment of passersby, gambling,
Attachment 2
PC5 - 21
Effectiveness of Alcohol Outlet Regulations Update - Memorandum Page 2
prostitution, sale of stolen goods, public urination, theft, assaults, batteries, acts of
vandalism, excessive littering, loitering, graffiti, illegal parking, excessive loud noises,
especially in the late night or early morning hours, traffic violations, curfew violations,
lewd conduct, or police detentions and arrests;
4) That it does not result in violations to any applicable provision of any other city, state, or
federal regulation, ordinance or statute;
5) That its upkeep and operating characteristics are compatible with and will not adversely
affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding
neighborhood.
It should be noted that there have been no violations of the Deemed Approved Ordinance from its
effective date on June 19, 2012, through June 30, 2017. The fact of having the Ordinance in place
along with a strong partnership with the Downtown Association has prevented alcohol-related
incidents and created a collaborative environment of working towards compliance while
maintaining the downtown as an attractive and safe place to live, work, shop and visit.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Department Licensing
The California Alcoholic Beverage Control Department (ABC) has licensing categories for
“restaurants” and “bars.” Despite these separate categories, the ABC licensing system allows
“restaurants” (serving food as the primary activity) to also function as “bars” intermittently after
peak restaurant hours (serving alcohol as the main focus). California ABC regulations include five
main license categories that distinguish bars from restaurants based on meal service and the type
of alcohol served:
1) On-Sale Beer (Beer Bars) or license Type 40;
2) On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (where full meals are served)
or license Type 41;
3) On-Sale Beer and Wine for Public Premises (Beer & Wine Bars) or license Type 42;
4) On-Sale General for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (Beer, Wine and Spirits, General
Restaurant) or license Type 47; and
5) On-Sale General for Public Premises (where full meals are not served, Bar/Tavern) or
license Type 48.
In addition, within the Downtown, the following alcohol license types also exist:
6) Small Beer Manufacturer Brew Pub or Micro-brewery (on-site sale of specialty beers only)
or license Type 23;
7) On-Sale General Brew Pub (Brewery & General Restaurant) or license Type 75.
While there are 22 types of alcohol licenses under ABC criteria (Attachment 2), the seven listed
above are the most prevalent within the Downtown Association Boundary.
Alcohol Outlets Concentration within Downtown Association Boundary
Previous reporting on alcohol outlets in downtown San Luis Obispo measured the instances of
alcohol outlets by census tract, which vary in size and geographical area. Using the Downtown
Association Boundary to measure the performance of alcohol outlets captures those locations
centralized downtown which are directly affected by the Deemed Approved Alcohol Outlet
Attachment 2
PC5 - 22
Effectiveness of Alcohol Outlet Regulations Update - Memorandum Page 3
Regulations (Attachment 1). Table 1 below shows the total number of ABC licenses by type found
within the Downtown Association Boundary, recorded on a bi-annual basis (every two fiscal years)
since 2011-2012.
Table 1: Number of Alcohol Outlets per Type Bi-Annually
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Department uses census tracts for the purpose of quantifying
concentrations of alcohol licenses. The City contains 11 census tracts within (or partially within)
the City limits, with most alcohol licenses issued in census tracts 111.01 (Higuera Street and the
Downtown Core). A small portion of census tract 111.02 is also located within the Downtown
Association Boundary. Both census tracts are considered “over concentrated” under ABC criteria,
defined as more than one alcohol license for each 2,000 people per census tract. It should be noted
that San Luis Obispo County has a different standard, which considers over-concentration as a
ratio of one on-sale license per 405 persons per census tract.
Since the adoption of the alcohol outlet regulations, 16 new ABC alcohol licenses have been added
Downtown, none of which have been found in violation of their Use Permits (if the establishment
holds a Use Permit) or of the conditions of the alcohol outlet regulations. Licensee establishments
include 13 restaurants, two movie theaters, and one tasting room, as listed below.
1) Granada Hotel (Type 47, 2012) 9) Flour House (Type 47, 2015)
2) Wineman Grill House (Type 41, 2013) 10) Oasis Restaurant (Type 41, 2015)
3) La Locanda (Type 41, 2013) 11) Urbane Café (Type 41, 2015)
4) Pluto’s (Type 41, 2013) 12) Fremont Theater (Type 41, 2016)
5) Foremost (Type 41, 2014) 13) Thomas Hill Organics (Type 47, 2016)
6) The Movie Experience (Type 41, 2014) 14) Wing Stop (Type 41, 2016)
7) Barrelhouse (Type 23, 2015) 15) Mint + Craft (Type 41, 2017)
8) Libertine (Type 23, 2015) 16) Vegetable Butcher (Type 41, 2017)
3
33
2
18
4 2
62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Type 23 Type 41 Type 42 Type 47 Type 48 Type 75 TotalNumber of Alchol LicensesLicense Type
Number of Alcohol Outlets per Type within the
Downtown Association Boundary
2011-2013
2013-2015
2015-2017
Attachment 2
PC5 - 23
Effectiveness of Alcohol Outlet Regulations Update - Memorandum Page 4
Attachment 3 lists all alcohol outlets, by business and address, within the boundaries of the
Downtown Association as of November 30, 2017. The list identifies a total of 61 alcohol outlets
within the Downtown Association boundary, 26 of which have a Use Permit to serve alcohol after
11 p.m., and 15 of which additionally have approval for live entertainment. Since the adoption of
the regulations in 2012, 11 new Use Permits have been approved or replaced pre-existing Use
Permits for alcohol outlets in the downtown, as shown in Table 2.
It should be noted that these 11 Use Permit requests (excluding Barrelhouse regarding food
services) were all approved with conditions to prevent restaurants from morphing into a bar or
nightclubs including but not limited to:
1) Limitations on hours of operation,
2) Restaurants shall offer full food menu service during all hours of operation; and
3) Employees attend security/safety training with ABC LEAD and/or San Luis Obispo Police
Department Alcohol Responsibility Training.
In addition, each Use Permit includes the condition that upon evidence of any substantiated written
complaints, which includes information that a violation of the Use Permit has occurred, the Use
Permit shall be reviewed at a public hearing before the Administrative Hearing Officer. During
this review additional conditions of approval may be added, deleted, modified or the permit may
be revoked.
Table 2: Number of Use Permits added within the Downtown Association Boundary per fiscal year.
Results from the Downtown Bar/Restaurant Inspection Program
The Community Development Department has established an annual Downtown Bar/Restaurant
Inspection Program. The inspection program is held in the evening with the team consisting of
staff from the Building Division, Code Enforcement Division, and the Fire Department. Staff
inspects a list of bars and restaurants downtown. Inspections are focused on identifying violations
of building and safety codes as well as determining compliance with Use Permit conditions of
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017Number of Use PermitsFiscal Year
Use Permits Downtown
Use Permits Approved
Existing Use Permits
Attachment 2
PC5 - 24
Effectiveness of Alcohol Outlet Regulations Update - Memorandum Page 5
approval. A number of building safety concerns have been identified during the inspections, and
two Use Permit violations were identified, which involved hours of operation and live
entertainment for restaurants with Type 47 licenses. These issues have since been resolved.
Noise Violations
Noise is also a concern in the downtown area; Table 3 below, indicates that noise violations have
decreased over the past four fiscal years. These violations are specific to alcohol outlets within the
Downtown Association Boundary between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. It should be noted
that Table 3 only identifies the general location of the noise violations, and not if the business itself
is responsible for the violation.
Table 3: Downtown Alcohol Outlet Noise Violations per Fiscal Year
Police Incident Statistics Downtown
Downtown San Luis Obispo experiences an influx of individuals during the late evening to early
morning hours who are attracted to the bar scene. With the number of restaurants and bars centrally
located, downtown San Luis Obispo has become a destination location for individuals throughout
the County. For the most part, the Police Department experiences very few problems during the
early evening hours. T ypically, the Police Department begins to see an increase in calls around
10:00 p.m., which is associated with patrons attracted to the bar scene in the downtown area.
Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., most calls for service in the downtown area are
for individuals who are drunk in public, engaged in assaults, committing vandalism or urinating in
public.
Over the past four years the Police Department has seen a decrease in the number of arrests for
some of the above-mentioned calls. This can be attributed to the Police Department increasing
enforcement as directed through the expansion of the Downtown Officer program first funded with
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017Number of Noise ViolationsFiscal Year
Downtown Alcohol Outlet Noise Violations
per Alcohol License Type
Type 41
Type 47
Type 48
Type 75
Attachment 2
PC5 - 25
Effectiveness of Alcohol Outlet Regulations Update - Memorandum Page 6
the 2013-15 Financial Plan. The purpose of the increased enforcement is to preserve the high
quality of life for residents and visitors in the downtown area.
In addition to patrols, the Police Department coordinates annual training for bar owners and their
staff. The training includes false ID identification, dealing with uncooperative subjects, and
identifying subjects who are intoxicated and should not be served alcohol. The Police Department
works with the Downtown Association during special events to address any concerns surrounding
these activities. Table 4 below illustrates total incidents in the downtown, including arrests, alcohol
offenses, intoxicated persons, and assaults. The timeframe for these incidents is from 9:00 p.m.
until 3:00 a.m. to focus on the busiest time in the downtown for police responses.
Table 4: Downtown Incidents per Fiscal Year
Conclusion
Since the effective date of the Alcohol Outlet Regulations on June 19, 2012, through June 30,
2017, there have been no violations of the 16 new alcohol licenses, or any violation to conditions
of the 11 newly added Use Permits, within the Downtown Association Boundary. In addition,
violations for pre-existing establishments have been on the decline. The City’s Downtown
Bar/Restaurant Inspection Program will continue to ensure compliance with the Alcohol Outlet
Regulations and Use Permit conditions for existing and future businesses in the downtown area.
A summary of the statuses for each of the violation categories are provided below;
• Deemed Approved Ordinance – no violations
0
50
100
150
200
250
11 7 16 6 6 11
3
25 32 29
17 18 19 12
59
48 58
45
31 35 40
87
61
90
51
88
50 56
151
112
81 79 94
78
52
156 162
200 210 223
203
170
Number of IncidentsFiscal Year
Downtown Incidents 2010-2017
Felony Assault
Vandalism
Misdemeanor Assault
Open Container
Urinating in Public
Drunk in Public
Attachment 2
PC5 - 26
Effectiveness of Alcohol Outlet Regulations Update - Memorandum Page 7
• Downtown Inspection Program – two use permit violations that have since been resolved
• Downtown Noise Violations – decreasing
• Downtown Police Incidents – decreasing (contributed, in part, to increased enforcement)
Attachments
1. Downtown Association Boundary Map
2. ABC License Types
3. Alcohol Outlets within the Downtown Association
Additional Resources
San Luis Obispo Police Department. (2017). 2016 Annual Report. City of San Luis Obispo.
Retrieved from http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=16481
San Luis Obispo Police Department. (2017). Measuring Our Performance, A Fiscal Comparison
with Selected Benchmark Cities. City of San Luis Obispo. Retrieved from
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=4907
State of California Department of Justice. (2017). CJSC Statistics: Crimes and Clearances.
Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved from http://oag.ca.gov/crime/cjsc/stats/crimes-
clearances
Wittman, F. (2012). Restaurants that “Morph” into Bars and Nightclubs in California
Communities: What’s the Problem and What Can Be Done About It? Community Prevention
Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.ca-
cpi.org/docs/Publications/Policy_Briefs/RestaurantsThatMorph_2012Oct_PolicyBrief.pdf
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department. (2013) 2013 Study Session to
Review Effectiveness of 2012 Alcohol Outlet Amendments. Received from
http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=16523&searchid=6e0db699-935f-
408a-8bcf-a291b55da393&dbid=1
G:\CD-PLAN\KBELL\Alcohol Outlets
Attachment 2
PC5 - 27
C
H
O
R
R
O
PISMOHIGUERAMARSHISLAYT
O
R
O
O
S
O
S
M
O
R
R
OPEACHNI
P
O
M
O
G
A
R
D
E
N
B
E
A
C
HDANABRIZZOLARA PACIFICRAILROADC
O
U
R
T
MONTEREYO
S
O
S
B
R
O
A
DPALMABC License #23
ABC License #75
ABC License #48
ABC License #47
ABC License #42
ABC License #41
Downtown Association Boundary
Alcohol Outlets Context Map
0 500 1,000250Feet
Attachment 3Attachment 2PC5 - 28
ABC-616 (01-15)
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
COMMON ABC LICENSE TYPES
AND THEIR BASIC PRIVILEGES
State of California
LICENSE
TYPE
D ESC R I PT I O N
01 BEER MANUFACTURER - (Large Brewery) Authorizes the sale of beer to any person holding a license
authorizing the sale of beer, and to consumers for consumption on or off the manufacturer’s licensed
premises. Without any additional licenses, may sell beer and wine, regardless of source, to consumers for
consumption at a bona fide public eating place on the manufacturer’s licensed premises or at a bona fide
eating place contiguous to the manufacturer’s licensed premises. May conduct beer tastings under specified
conditions (Section 23357.3). Minors are allowed on the premises.
02 WINEGROWER - (Winery) Authorizes the sale of wine and brandy to any person holding a license
authorizing the sale of wine and brandy, and to consumers for consumption off the premises where sold.
Authorizes the sale of all wines and brandies, regardless of source, to consumers for consumption on the
premises in a bona fide eating place that is located on the licensed premises or on premises owned by the
licensee that are contiguous to the licensed premises and operated by and for the licensee. May possess
wine and brandy for use in the preparation of food and beverage to be consumed at the bona fide eating
place. May conduct winetastings under prescribed conditions (Section 23356.1; Rule 53). Minors are
allowed on the premises.
20 OFF SALE BEER & WINE - (Package Store) Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off
the premises where sold. Minors are allowed on the premises.
21 OFF SALE GENERAL - (Package Store) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for
consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are allowed on the premises.
23 SMALL BEER MANUFACTURER - (Brew Pub or Micro-brewery) Authorizes the same privileges and
restrictions as a Type 01. A brewpub is typically a very small brewery with a restaurant. A micro -brewery
is a small-scale brewery operation that typically is dedicated solely to the production of specialty beers,
although some do have a restaurant or pub on their manufacturing plant.
40 ON SALE BEER - (Bar, Tavern) Authorizes the sale of beer for consumption on or off the premises where
sold. No wine or distilled spirits may be on the premises. Full meals are not required; however, sandwiches
or snacks must be available. Minors are allowed on the premises.
41
ON SALE BEER & WINE – EATING PLACE - (Restaurant) Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for
consumption on or off the premises where sold. Distilled spirits may not be on the premises (except brandy,
rum, or liqueurs for use solely for cooking purposes). Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a
bona fide eating place. Must maintain suitable kitchen facilities, and must make actual and substantial sales
of meals for consumption on the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises.
42 ON SALE BEER & WINE – PUBLIC PREMISES - (Bar, Tavern) Authorizes the sale of beer and wine
for consumption on or off the premises where sold. No distilled spirits may be on the premises. Minors are
not allowed to enter and remain (see Section 25663.5 for exception, musicians). Food service is not
required.
47 ON SALE GENERAL – EATING PLACE - (Restaurant) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled
spirits for consumption on the licenses premises. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off
the licenses premises. Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Must
maintain suitable kitchen facilities, and must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on
the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises.
48 ON SALE GENERAL – PUBLIC PREMISES - (Bar, Night Club) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and
distilled spirits for consumption on the premises where sold. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for
consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are not allowed to enter and remain (see Section 25663.5
for exception, musicians). Food service is not required.
49 ON SALE GENERAL – SEASONAL - Authorizes the same privileges and restrictions as provided for a
Type 47 license except it is issued for a specific season. Inclusive dates of operation are listed on the
license certificate.
Attachment 2Attachment 2
PC5 - 29
ABC-616 (01-15)
LICENSE
TYPE
D ESC R I PT I O N
51 CLUB - Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits, to members and guests only, for consumption
on the premises where sold. No off-sale privileges. Food service is not required. Minors are allowed on
the premises.
52 VETERAN’S CLUB - Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits, to members and guests only,
for consumption on the premises where sold. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine, to members and guest
only, for consumption off the licensed premises. Food service is not required. Minors are allowed on the
premises.
57 SPECIAL ON SALE GENERAL - Generally issued to certain organizations who cannot qualify for club
licenses. Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits, to members and guests only, for
consumption on the premises where sold. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine, to members and guests
only, for consumption off the licensed premises. Food service is not required. Minors are allowed on the
premises.
59 ON SALE BEER AND WINE – SEASONAL - Authorizes the same privileges as a Type 41. Issued for a
specific season. Inclusive dates of operation are listed on the license certificate.
60 ON SALE BEER – SEASONAL - Authorizes the sale of beer only for consumption on or off the premises
where sold. Issued for a specific season. Inclusive dates of operation are listed on the license certificate.
Wine or distilled spirits may not be on the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises.
61 ON SALE BEER – PUBLIC PREMISES - (Bar, Tavern) Authorizes the sale of beer only for
consumption on or off the licensed premises. Wine or distilled spirits may not be on the premises. Minors
are not allowed to enter and remain (warning signs required). Food service is not required.
67 BED AND BREAKFAST INN - Authorizes the sale of wine purchased from a licensed winegrower or
wine wholesaler only to registered guests of the establishment for consumption on the premises. No beer or
distilled spirits may be on the premises. Wine shall not be given away to guests, but the price of the wine
shall be included in the price of the overnight transient occupancy accommodation. Removal of wine from
the grounds is not permitted. Minors are allowed on the premises.
70 ON SALE GENERAL – RESTRICTIVE SERVICE - Authorizes the sale or furnishing of beer, wine and
distilled spirits for consumption on the premises to the establishment’s overnight transient occupancy guests
or their invitees. This license is normally issued to “suite-type” hotels and motels, which exercise the
license privileges for guests’ “complimentary” happy hour. Minors are allowed on the premises.
75 ON SALE GENERAL – BREWPUB - (Restaurant) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits
for consumption on a bona fide eating place plus a limited amount of brewing of beer. This license does not
authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are allowed
on the premises.
80 BED AND BREAKFAST INN – GENERAL - Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits
purchased from a licensed wholesaler or winegrower only to registered guests of the establishment for
consumption on the premises. Alcoholic beverages shall not be given away to guests, but the price of the
alcoholic beverage shall be included in the price of the overnight transient occupancy accommodation.
Removal of alcoholic beverages from the grounds is not permitted. Minors are allowed on the premises.
86 INSTRUCTIONAL TASTING LICENSE–Issued to the holder of and premises of a Type 20 or Type 21
licensee, authorizes the tasting of alcoholic beverages as authorized to be sold from the off-sale premises, on
a limited basis. Requires physical separation from the off-sale premises while tasting is taking place and
generally requires the participation of a specifically-authorized manufacturer or wholesaler licensee.
Attachment 2Attachment 2
PC5 - 30
ABC-616 (01-15)
SPECIAL EVENTS
The Department also issues licenses and authorizations for the retail sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits on a temporary basis
for special events. The most common are listed below. Other less common ones are found in Business and Professions Code
Section 24045.2, et seq.
SPECIAL DAILY BEER AND/OR WINE LICENSE - (Form ABC-221) Authorizes the sale of beer and/or wine for consumption
on the premises where sold. No off-sale privileges. Minors are allowed on the premises. May be revoked summarily by the
Department if, in the opinion of the Department and/or the local law enforcement agency, it is necessary to protect the safety,
welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the State. In some instances, the local ABC office may require the applic ant to
obtain prior written approval of the local law enforcement agency. Issued to non-profit organizations. (Rule 59, California Code of
Regulations)
DAILY ON SALE GENERAL LICENSE - (Form ABC-221) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for
consumption on the premises where sold. No off-sale privileges. Minors are allowed on the premises. May be revoked summarily
by the Department if, in the opinion of the Department and/or the local law enforcement agency, it is necessary to protect th e safety,
welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the State. In some instances, the local ABC office may require the applicant to
obtain prior written approval of the local law enforcement agency. Issued to political parties or affiliates supporting a ca ndidate for
public office or a ballot measure or charitable, civic, fraternal or religious organizations. (Section 24045.1 and Rule 59.5 California
Code of Regulations)
CATERING AUTHORIZATION - (Form ABC-218) Authorizes Type 47, 48, 51, 52, 57, 75 and 78 licensees (and catering
businesses that qualify under Section 24045.12) to sell beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption at conventions, sporting
events, trade exhibits, picnics, social gatherings, or similar events. Type 47, 48 and 57 licensees may cater alcoholic beve rages at
any ABC-approved location in the State. Type 51 and 52 licensees may only cater alcoholic beverages at their licensed premises.
All licensees wishing to cater alcoholic beverages must obtain prior written authorization from the Department for each event . At all
approved events, the licensee may exercise only those privileges authorized by the licensee’s license and shall comply with a ll
provisions of the ABC Act pertaining to the conduct of on-sale premises and violation of those provisions may be grounds for
suspension or revocation of the licensee’s license or permit, or both, as though the violation occurred on the licensed premi ses.
(Section 23399 and Rule 60.5 California Code of Regulations)
EVENT AUTHORIZATION - (Form ABC-218) Authorizes Type 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 57, 75 and 78 licensees to sell beer, wine and
distilled spirits for consumption on property adjacent to the licensed premises and owned or under the control of the license e. This
property shall be secured and controlled by the licensee and not visible to the general public. The licensee shall obtain prior
approval of the local law enforcement agency. At all approved events, the licensee may exercise only those privileges authorized by
the licensee’s license and shall comply with all provisions of the ABC Act pertaining to the conduct of on-sale premises (including
any license conditions) and violations of those provisions may be grounds for suspension or revocation of the licensee’s lice nse or
permit, or both, as though the violation occurred on the licensed premises. (Section 23399)
WINE SALES EVENT PERMIT - (Form ABC-239) Authorizes Type 02 licensees to sell bottled wine produced by the
winegrower for consumption off the premises where sold and only at fairs, festivals or cultural events sponsored by designated tax
exempt organizations. The licensee must notify the city and/or county where the event is being held and obtain approval from ABC
for each event (Form ABC-222). The licensee must also comply with all restrictions listed in Business and Professions Code Section
23399.6.
Note:
1. “Minor” means any person under 21 years of age.
2. Consult Section 25663(b) regarding age of employees in off-sale premises; consult Sections 25663(a) and 25663.5 regarding age of employees
in on-sale premises.
3. In certain situations, ABC may place reasonable conditions upon a license, such as restrictions as to hours of sale, employment of designated
persons, display of signs, restrictions on entertainment or dancing, etc. If a license has been conditioned, it will be endorsed as such on the face
of the license. (Conditional licenses, Sections 23800-23805.)
Attachment 2Attachment 2
PC5 - 31
ABC-616 (01-15)
4. Licensees whose license allows minors on the premises may have a “house policy” restricting minors from entering certain area s of the premises
or prohibiting minors in the premises during certain hours.
5. This handout contains only abbreviated information. Contact your local ABC office for full information before doing anything which may
jeopardize your license. Also available from the ABC: Quick Summary of Selected ABC Laws (form ABC-608); Alcoholic Beverage Control
Act (complete laws); Rules & Regulations; and P-90 (describes privileges of non-retail licenses).
Attachment 2Attachment 2
PC5 - 32
Attachment 3
Business Name Business Address
ABC
License
Type
Use Permit Late Hours
(past 11 p.m.)
Live
Entertainment
Aisuru Sushi & Sake Bar 1017-1023 Monterey Street 41
Barrelhouse Brewing Co. 1033 Chorro Street 23 X X
Big Sky Café 1121 Broad Street 41
Black Sheep Bar & Grill 1117 Chorro Street 47 X X X
Bull's Tavern 1040 Chorro Street 48 X
Buona Tavola 1037 Monterey Street 41
California Pizza Kitchen 876 Marsh Street, Space E 47
Central Coast Wines 712 Higuera Street 42
Chipotle Mexican Grill 853 Higuera Street 41
Chronic Tacos 892 Marsh Street 41
Ciopinot 1051 Nipomo Street 47
Creeky Tiki 778 & 782 Higuera Street,
Suite D & G 47 X X X
El Matador 1032 Chorro Street 41
Eureka! 1141 Chorro Street 47 X X X
F Mclintock's Saloon 686 Higuera Street 47 X X
Firestone Grill 1001 Higuera Street, Suite A 47
Flour House 690 Higuera Street 47
Foremost Wine Company 570 Higuera Street, Suite 105,
110 & 115 41 X X
Fremont Theater 1035 Monterey Street 41
Frog & Peach Pub 728 Higuera Street 48 X X X
Giuseppe's Cucina Rustica 849 & 853 Monterey Street 47 X X
Granada 1120, 1126 & 1128 Morro
Street 47
Japanese Restaurant Goshi 570 Higuera Street, Suite 20 41
Koberl At Blue 998 Monterey Street 47 X X X
Kreuzberg 685 Higuera Street 41 X X X
La Locanda 1137 & 1141 Garden Street 41
Libertine Brewing 1234 Broad Street 23 X
Lotus Best 1131 Broad Street 41
Luis Wine Bar 1021 Higuera Street 42 X X
Luna Red 1023 Chorro Street 47 X X X
Mama's Meatball 570 Higuera Street, Suite 125,
130 & 135 41
Marstons 673 Higuera Street 47 X X X
McCarthy's Irish Pub 600 Marsh Street 48 X X
Attachment 2
PC5 - 33
Metro Brewing 1040 Broad Street 75 X X
Mint + Craft 848 Monterey Street 41
Mo's Smokehouse BBQ 1005 Monterey Street 41
Mother's Tavern 725 Higuera Street 47 X X X
Natural Café 698 Higuera Street 41
Novo Restaurant 726 Higuera Street 47 X X X
Oasis Restaurant 675 Higuera Street 41
Old San Luis Barbecue 670 Higuera Street, Suite B C
& D 41
Pizza Solo 891 Higuera Street 41
Pluto's 1122 Chorro Street 41
Sidecar 1127 Broad Street 47 X X
SLO Brew 736 Higuera Street 75 X X X
SLO Taps LLC
(Blast 825 Taproom) 733 Higuera Street 41 X X X
Spike's Pub 570 Higuera Street, Space 2 41 X
Splash Café 893 Higuera Street 41
Sumo Sushi 667 Marsh Street, Suite C 41
Thai Palace Restaurant 1015 Court Street 41
The Bro Collective
(Buffalo Pub and Grill) 717 Higuera Street 47 X X X
The Library 723 Higuera Street 48 X X X
The Movie Experience 888 Marsh Street 41
The Naked Fish 857 Higuera Street 41
Thomas Hill Organics 858 Monterey Street 47 X X
Underground Brewing
Company, LLC 1040 Broad Street 23 X
Urbane Café 952 Higuera Street 41
Vegetable Butcher 712 Higuera Street 41
Wineman Grillhaus 851 Higuera Street 41 X X
Wing Stop 1029 Chorro Street 41
Woodstock's Pizza 1000 Higuera Street 41 X X
Totals 26 27 15
Attachment 2
PC5 - 34
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011
Select California Laws Relating to Residential
Recovery Facilities and Group Homes
State Bar of California
Real Property Law Section
Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Section
Third Annual Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Symposium
Golden Gate University
April 22, 2011
Presented by:
Barbara Kautz
Goldfarb & Lipman LLP
1300 Clay Street, Ninth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
510 836-6336
bkautz@goldfarblipman.com
Attachment 3
PC5 - 35
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 1
I.Introduction
This paper summarizes California statutes and case law regarding planning and zoning
requirements applicable to group homes and supportive housing that impose limitations on local
governments beyond those imposed by the federal Fair Housing Act and state Fair Employment
and Housing Act. The paper first reviews state statutes that protect certain licensed group homes
and describes provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law that are applicable more generally to
both licensed and unlicensed homes. It then explains California case law relating to the right of
privacy, which prevents local governments from discriminating between households containing
related persons and those comprised of unrelated individuals. It concludes by discussing local
regulations that appear to be permissible under State law and fair housing law.
II.Statutes Protecting Licensed Facilities
A complex set of statutes requires that cities and counties treat small, licensed group homes like
single-family homes. Inpatient and outpatient psychiatric facilities, including residential facilities
for the mentally ill, must also be allowed in certain zoning districts.
A.California Licensing Laws
California has adopted a complicated licensing scheme in which group homes providing certain
kinds of care and supervision must be licensed. Some licensed homes cannot be closer than 300
feet to each other, while other licensed homes have no separation requirements. All licensed
facilities serving six or fewer persons must be treated like single-family homes for zoning
purposes.
While this section discusses some of the most common licensed facilities, it does not include
every type of license or facility regulated in this complex area of law.
1.Community Care Facilities
Community care facilities must be licensed by the California Department of Social Services
(CDSS).1 A "community care facility" is a facility where non-medical care and supervision are
provided for children or adults in need of personal services.2 Facilities serving adults typically
provide care and supervision for persons between 18-59 years of age who need a supportive
living environment. Residents are usually mentally or developmentally disabled. The services
provided may include assistance in dressing and bathing; supervision of client activities;
monitoring of food intake; or oversight of the client's property.3
CDSS separatel y licenses residential care facilities for the elderly and residential care facilities
for the chronicall y ill. Residential care facilities for the elderly provide varying levels of non-
1 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1500 et seq.
2 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1502(a).
3 22 Cal. Code of Regulations 80001(c)(2).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 36
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 2
medical care and supervision for persons 60 years of age or older.4 Residential care facilities for
the chronically ill provide treatment for persons with AIDS or HIV disease.5
2.Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facilities
The State Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs ("ADP") licenses facilities serving six or
fewer persons that provide residential non-medical services to adults who are recovering from
problems related to alcohol or drugs and need treatment or detoxification services.6 Individuals
in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction are defined as disabled under the Fair Housing Act.7
This category of disability includes both individuals recovering in licensed detoxification
facilities and recovering alcoholics or drug users who may live in "clean and sober" living
facilities.
3.Health Facilities
The State Department of Health Services and State Department of Mental Health license a
variety of residential health care facilities serving six or fewer persons.8 These include
"congregate living health facilities" which provide in-patient care to no more than six persons
who may be terminally ill, ventilator dependent, or catastrophically and severely disabled9 and
intermediate care facilities for persons who need intermittent nursing care.10 Pediatric day health
and respite care facilities with six or fewer beds are separately licensed.11
B.Protection from Land Use Regulations for Certain Licensed Facilities
Small facilities licensed under these sections of California law and serving six or fewer residents
must be treated by local governments identically to single-family homes. Additional protection
from discrimination is provided to certain psychiatric facilities. However, some group homes
may be subject to spacing requirements.
1. Limitations on Zoning Control of Small Group Homes Serving Six or
Fewer Residents
Licensed group homes serving six or fewer residents must be treated like single-family homes or
single dwelling units for zoning purposes.12 In other words, a licensed group home serving six or
fewer residents must be a permitted use in all residential zones in which a single-family home is
4 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1569.2(k).
5 22 Cal. Code of Regulations 87801(a)(5).
6 Cal. Health & Safety Code 11834.02.
7 24 C.F.R. 100.201.
8 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1265 –1271.1.
9 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1250(i).
10 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1250(e) and 1250(h).
11 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1760 –1761.8.
12 This rule appears to apply to virtually all licensed group homes. Included are facilities for persons with disabilities
and other facilities (Welfare & Inst. Code 5116), residential health care facilities (Health & Safety Code 1267.8,
1267.9, & 1267.16), residential care facilities for the elderly (Health & Safety Code 1568.083 -1568.0831, 1569.82
–1569.87), community care facilities (Health & Safety Code 1518, 1520.5,1566 -1566.8, 1567.1, pediatric day
health facilities (Health & Safety Code 1267.9; 1760 –1761.8), and facilities for alcohol and drug treatment (Health
& Safety Code 11834.23).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 37
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 3
permitted, with the same parking requirements, setbacks, design standards, and the like. No
conditional use permit, variance, or special permit can be required for these small group homes
unless the same permit is required for single-family homes, nor can parking standards be higher,
nor can special design standards be imposed. The statutes specifically state that these facilities
cannot be considered to be boarding houses or rest homes or regulated as such.13 Staff members
and operators of the facility may reside in the home in addition to those served.
Homeowners' associations and other residents also cannot enforce restrictive covenants limiting
uses of homes to "private residences" to exclude group homes for the disabled serving six or
fewer persons.14
The Legislature in 2006 adopted AB 2184 (Bogh) to clarify that communities may fully enforce
local ordinances against these facilities, including fines and other penalties, so long as the
ordinances do not distinguish residential facilities from other single-family homes.15
Because there are no separation requirements for drug and alcohol treatment facilities, ADP has
in practice been willing to issue separate licenses for 'small' drug and alcohol treatment facilities
whenever a dwelling unit or structure has a separate address. For instance, ADP has issued a
separate license for each apartment in one multifamily building, for each single-family home in a
six-home compound, and for each cottage in a hotel, in each case creating facilities that in fact
serve many more than six residents. No local effort to regulate these facilities as 'large'
residential care facilities has been successful in a published case; in other contexts, the courts
have determined that the State has completely preempted local regulation of small residential
care facilities.16
2.Facilities Serving More Than Six Residents
Because California law only protects licensed facilities serving six or fewer residents, many
cities and counties restrict the location of facilities housing seven or more clients. They may do
this by requiring use permits, adopting special parking and other standards for these homes, or
prohibiting these large facilities outright in certain zoning districts. While this practice may raise
fair housing issues, no published California decision prohibits the practice. Some cases in other
federal circuits have found that requiring a conditional use permit for large group homes violates
the federal Fair Housing Act.17 However, the federal Ninth Circuit, whose decisions are binding
in California, found that requiring a conditional use permit for a building atypical in size and
bulk for a single-family residence does not violate the Fair Housing Act.18
13 For example, see Health & Safety Code 1566.3 & 11834.23.
14 Government Code 12955; Hall v. Butte Home Health Inc., 60 Cal. App. 4th 308 (1997); Broadmoor San Clemente
Homeowners Assoc. v. Nelson, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1 (1994).
15 Health & Safety Code 1566.3; Chapter 746, Statutes of 2006.
16 City of Los Angeles v. Department of Health, 63 Cal. App. 3d 473, 479 (1976).
17 ARC of New Jersey v. New Jersey, 950 F. Supp. 637 (D. N.J. 1996); Assoc. for Advancement of the Mentally
Handicapped v. City of Elizabeth, 876 F. Supp. 614 (D. N.J. 1994).
18 Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300,304 (9th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Village of Palatine, 104
F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1997).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 38
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 4
A city or county cannot require an annual review of a group home's operations as a condition of
a use permit. The Ninth Circuit has held that an annual review provision adopted as a condition
of a special use permit was not consistent with the Fair Housing Act.19
In 2006, the Legislature passed a bill (SB 1322) sponsored by State Senator Cedillo that would
have required all communities to designate sites where licensed facilities with seven or more
residents could locate either as a permitted use or with a use permit. It was motivated by
newspaper reports of suburban communities' "dumping" the mentally ill and homeless in big
cities. Although SB 1322 was vetoed by the Governor, changes were later made in Housing
Element law to protect certain transitional and supportive housing, as discussed further below.
3.Siting of Inpatient and Outpatient Psychiatric Facilities
Cities must allow health facilities for both inpatient and outpatient psychiatric care and treatment
in any area zoned for hospitals or nursing homes, or in which hospitals and nursing homes are
permitted with a conditional use permit.20 "Health facilities" include residential care facilities for
mentally ill persons. This means that if a zoning ordinance permits hospitals or nursing homes in
an area, it must also permit all types of mental health facilities, regardless of the number of
patients or residents. This is important because most cities are supportive of hospitals and
nursing zones and may allow them in areas where they would normally not wish to allow large
facilities for the mentally ill.
In one case, a residential care facility for 16 mentally ill persons was refused a permit in an R-2
zoning district where "rest homes" and "convalescent homes" were permitted, but not "nursing
homes." Since the zoning district did not permit "nursing homes" or hospitals, the City believed
that it was able to forbid the use in that zoning district. However, the court found that the City's
definitions of "rest homes" and "convalescent homes" were very similar to its definition of
"nursing homes"—rest homes and convalescent homes were, in effect, nursing homes—and so
held that the City must allow the residential facility for mentally ill persons within that zoning
district.21
4. Separation Requirements for Certain Licensed Facilities
CDSS must deny an application for certain group homes if the new facility would result in
"overconcentration." For community care facilities,22 intermediate care facilities, and pediatric
day health and respite care facilities,23 "overconcentration" is defined as a separation of less than
300 feet from another licensed "residential care facility," measured from the outside walls of the
structure housing the facility. Congregate living health facilities must be separated by 1,000
feet.24
19 Turning Point, Inc. v. City of Caldwell, 74 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 1996).
20 Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code 5120.
21 City of Torrance v. Transitional Living Centers, 30 Cal. 3d 516 (1982).
22 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1520.5.
23 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1267.9.
24 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1267.9(b)(2).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 39
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 5
These separation requirements do not apply to residential care facilities for the elderly, drug and
alcohol treatment facilities, foster family homes, or "transitional shelter care facilities," which
provide immediate shelter for children removed from their homes. None of the separation
requirements have been challenged under the federal Fair Housing Act, although separation
requirements have been challenged in other states.25
CDSS must submit any application for a facility covered by the law to the city where the facility
will be located. The city may request that the license be denied based on overconcentration or
may ask that the license be approved. CDSS cannot approve a facility located within 300 feet of
an existing facility (or within 1,000 feet of a congregate living health facility) unless the city
approves the application. Even if there is adequate separation between the facilities, a city or
county may ask that the license be denied based on overconcentration.26
These separation requirements apply only to facilities with the same type of license. For instance,
a community care facility would not violate the separation requirements even if located next to a
drug and alcohol treatment facility.
C.Facilities That Do Not Need a License
Housing in which some services are provided to persons with disabilities may not require
licensing. In housing financed under certain federal housing programs, including Sections 202,
221(d)(3), 236, and 811, if residents obtain care and supervision independently from a third party
that is not the housing provider, then the housing provider need not obtain a license.27
"Supportive housing" and independent living facilities with "community living support services,"
both of which provide some services to disabled people, generally do not need to be licensed.28
Recovery homes providing group living arrangements for people who have graduated from drug
and alcohol programs, but which do not provide care or supervision, also do not need to be
licensed.29
The result is that many situations exist where persons with disabilities will live together and
receive some services in unlicensed facilities. Because State law does not require that these
facilities be treated as single-family homes, some communities have attempted to classify them
as lodging houses or other commercial uses and require special permits. Distinguishing a
"lodging house" from a "residence" is discussed in more detail in the next section. However,
courts in other jurisdictions have found that when the state does not provide a license for a type
of facility, cities cannot discriminate against facilities merely because they are unlicensed.30
Although there is no case on point in California or the Ninth Circuit, ordinances requiring greater
regulation for unlicensed homes with fewer services than licensed homes providing more
services could raise fair housing issues, although an argument can also be made that unlicensed
facilities are completely unregulated and hence require more local supervision. Some
25 Based on cases from other states, the 1,000-foot limit for congregate living health facilities is unlikely to be
upheld. Spacing requirements that have been challenged have required 500-foot separations or more.
26 See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code 1520.5(d).
27 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1505(p).
28 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1504.5.
29 Cal. Health & Safety Code 1505(i).
30 North-Shore Chicago Rehabilitation Inc. v. Village of Skokie, 827 F. Supp. 497 (1993).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 40
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 6
communities have explicitly adopted ordinances stating that unlicensed group homes serving six
or fewer clients are permitted in residential zones.31
Legislation was introduced in California in 2006 to make clear that communities could regulate
unlicensed facilities with six or fewer residents. This provision was ultimately removed after
receiving fierce opposition from advocates for the disabled and State agencies responsible for
finding placements for foster children and recovering drug and alcohol abusers.
III.California Planning and Zoning Laws
California Planning and Zoning Law has long contained provisions prohibiting discrimination in
land use decisions based on disability. Effective January 1, 2002, state housing element law was
amended to require an analysis of constraints on persons with disabilities and to require
programs providing reasonable accommodation. Additional protections for supportive and
transitional housing became effective on January 1, 2008.
A.Protection from Discrimination in Land Use Decisions
California's Planning and Zoning Law prohibits discrimination in local governments' zoning and
land use actions based on (among other categories) race, sex, lawful occupation, familial status,
disability, source of income, method of financing, or occupancy by low to middle income
persons.32 It also prevents agencies from imposing different requirements on single-family or
multifamily homes because of the familial status, disability, or income of the intended
residents.33
In general, the statute serves the same purposes and requires the same proof as a violation of the
federal Fair Housing Act.34 However, federal fair housing law does not specifically limit
discrimination based on income level,35 and Section 65008 makes clear that discrimination based
on disability is prohibited in local planning and zoning decisions.
B.Housing Elements
California requires that each city and county adopt a 'housing element' as part of its general plan
for the growth of the community.36 The housing element governs the development of housing in
the community. It must identify sites for all types of housing, including transitional housing,
supportive housing, and emergency shelters. Beginning in 2002, local housing elements were
required to analyz e constraints on housing for persons with disabilities and to include programs
31 For instance, one community adopted zoning provisions stating that “residential service facilities” serving 6 or
fewer clients could be permitted in any residential zone, defining such uses as: “A residential facility, other than a
residential care facility or single housekeeping unit, designed for the provision of personal services in addition to
housing, or where the operator receives compensation for the provision of personal services in addition to housing.
Personal services may include, but are not limited to, protection, care, supervision, counseling, guidance, training,
education, therapy, or other nonmedical care.”
32 Cal. Gov't Code 65008(a) and (b).
33 Cal. Gov't Code 65008(d)(2).
34 Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 485 (9th Cir. 1987).
35 Affordable Housing Development Corp. v. City of Fresno, 433 F.3d 1182 (2006).
36 Cal. Gov't Code 65580 et seq.
Attachment 3
PC5 - 41
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 7
to remove constraints or to provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons
with disabilities.37 The California Attorney General also sent a letter to local planning agencies
in May 2001 urging them to adopt reasonable accommodation ordinances. As a consequence,
many cities and counties in the State now have a separate reasonable accommodation ordinance
that may be applicable to group homes serving disabled persons, whether licensed or unlicensed.
Amendments to housing element law effective January 1, 200838 specifically require cities and
counties to include in their housing elements a program to remove constraints so that 'supportive
housing,' as defined in the bill, is treated like other residences of the same type. This means that
communities must revise their zoning so that the only restrictions that may be applied to
supportive housing, as defined in the statute, are those that apply to other residences of the same
type (single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes,or fourplexes) in the same zoning district; no
conditional use permit or other permit is required unless other residences of that type in the same
zone also must obtain the same permit.
However, to qualify for this protection, the supportive housing must meet the definition of
"supportive housing" contained in Health & Safety Code Section 50675.14, which is housing
that:
Has no limit on the length of stay.
Is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents in improving their health status,
retaining the housing, and living and working in the community.
Is occupied by the "target population," defined as adults with low incomes having one or
more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other
chronic health problems; and persons eligible for services under the Lanterman
Development Disabilities Act, which provides services to persons with developmental
disabilities that originated before the person turned 18.
Should a group home meeting this definition of "supportive housing" require a permit of any
type, California's "Housing Accountability Act" will allow it to be denied only under very
limited circumstances.39
37 Cal. Gov't Code 65583(a)(4); 65583(c)(3).
38 Cal. Gov't Code 65583(a)(5).
39 Cal. Gov't Code 65589.5(d). Local governments cannot deny supportive housing, or add conditions that make the
housing infeasible, unless they can make one of five findings:
The jurisdiction has met its low income housing needs.
The housing would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way
to mitigate the impact.
Denial is required to comply with state or federal law, and there is no way to comply without making the
housing unaffordable.
The housing is proposed on land zoned for agriculture and is surrounded on two sides by land being used
for agriculture, or there is inadequate water or sewer service.
The housing is inconsistent with both the zoning and the land use designation of the site and is not shown
in the housing element as an affordable housing site.
Attachment 3
PC5 - 42
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 8
Many privately operated group homes have limitations on the length of stay and are not occupied
by adults with low incomes and so do not qualify as "supportive housing" under this definition;
but many group homes funded under California's Mental Health Services Act do so qualify.
IV.Protections Provided by the California Right to Privacy
Unlike the federal Constitution, California's Constitution contains an express right to privacy,
adopted by the voters in 1972. The California Supreme Court has found that this right includes
"the right to be left alone in our own homes" and has explained that "the right to choose with
whom to live is fundamental."40 Consequently, the California courts have struck down local
ordinances that attempt to control who lives in a household—whether families or unrelated
persons, whether healthy or disabled, whether renters or owners. On the other hand, the courts
will support ordinances that regulate the use of a residence for commercial purposes.
Consequently, communities that desire to regulate group homes have attempted to define them as
commercial uses similar to boarding houses rather than restricting who lives there.
A.Families v. Unrelated Persons in a Household
In many states, local communities can control the number of unrelated people permitted to live in
a household. However, based on the privacy clause in the State Constitution, California case law
requires cities to treat groups of related and unrelated people identically when they function as
one household.41 Local ordinances that define a "family" in terms of blood, marriage, or
adoption, and that treat unrelated groups differently from "families," violate California law.
California cities cannot limit the number of unrelated people who live together while allowing an
unlimited number of family members to live in a dwelling.
In the lead case of City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, Mrs. Adamson owned a very large 6,200
sq. ft., 10-bedroom single-family home that she rented to twelve "congenial people." They
became "a close group with social, economic, and psychological commitments to each other.
They shared expenses, rotated chores, ate evening meals together" and considered themselves a
family.
However, Santa Barbara defined a family as either "two (2) or more persons related by blood,
marriage or legal adoption living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit," or a
maximum of five unrelated adults. The court considered the twelve residents to be an "alternate
family" that achieved many of the personal and practical needs served by traditional families.
The twelve met half the definition of "family," because they lived as a single housekeeping unit.
However, they were not related by blood. The court found that the right of privacy guaranteed
them the right to choose whom to live with. The purposes put forth by Santa Barbara to justify
the ordinance—such as a concern about parking—could be handled by neutral ordinances
applicable to all households, not just unrelated individuals, such as applying limits on the number
of cars to all households. "In general, zoning ordinances are much less suspect when they focus
on the use than when they command inquiry into who are the users."42
40 Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal. App. 4th 451, 459-60 (2001).
41 City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 Cal. 3d 123, 134 (1980).
42 Adamson, 27 Cal. 3d at 133.
Attachment 3
PC5 - 43
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 9
Despite this long-standing rule, a 2002 study found that one-third of local zoning ordinances,
including that of the City of Los Angeles, still contained illegal definitions of "family" that
included limits on the number of unrelated people in a household.43 While most cities were
aware that these limits were illegal and did not enforce them, interviews with staff members in
the City of Los Angeles, for example, found that many did attempt to enforce the limits on the
number of unrelated persons.44
If a group of people living together can meet the definition of a "household" or "family," there is
no limit on the number of people who are permitted to live together, except for Housing Code
limits discussed in the next section. By comparison, many ordinances regulate licensed group
homes more strictly if they have seven or more residents, by defining such licensed facilities as a
separate use.
Since Adamson, the California courts have struggled to determine when zoning ordinances are
focusing on the occupants of the home and when they are focusing on the use of the home. In
particular, courts have struck down ordinances that:
Limited the residents of a second dwelling unit to the property owner, his/her dependent,
or a caregiver for the owner or dependent.45
Allowed owner-occupied properties to have more residents than renter-occupied
properties.46
Imposed regulations on tenancies-in-common that had the effect of requiring unrelated
persons to share occupancy of their units with each other.47
On the other hand, the courts have upheld regulations when they were convinced that the city's
primary purpose was to prevent non-residential or commercial use in a residential area. In
particular, the courts have upheld ordinances that:
Regulated businesses in single-family residences ("home occupations") and limited
employees to residents of the home.48
Prohibited short-term transient rentals of properties for less than thirty days.49
B.Occupancy Limits
The Uniform Housing Code (the "UHC") establishes occupancy limits—the number of people
who may live in a house of a certain size—and in almost all circumstances municipalities may
43 Housing Rights, Inc., California Land Use and Zoning Campaign Report 27-28 (2002). Los Angeles is now
considering amendments to its ordinance.
44 Kim Savage, Fair Housing Impediments Study 37 (prepared for Los Angeles Housing Department) (2002).
45 Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal. App. 4th 451 (2001).
46 College Area Renters and Landlords Assn. v. City of San Diego, 43 Cal. App. 4th 677 (1996). However, this case
was decided primarily on equal protection grounds, rather than on the right of privacy.
47 Tom v. City & County of San Francisco, 120 Cal. App. 4th 674 (2004).
48 City of Los Altos v. Barnes, 3 Cal. App. 4th 1193 (1992).
49 Ewing v. City of Carmel, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579 (1991).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 44
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 10
not adopt more restrictive limits. The UHC provides that at least one room in a dwelling unit
must have 120 square feet. Other rooms must have at least 70 square feet (except kitchens). If
more than two persons are using a room for sleeping purposes, there must be an additional 50
square feet for each additional person.50 Using this standard, the occupancy limit would be seven
persons for a 400-sq. ft. studio apartment (the size of a standard two-car garage). Locally adopted
occupancy limits cannot be more restrictive than the UHC unless justified based on local
climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Efforts by cities to adopt more restrictive
standards based on other impacts (such as parking and noise) have been overturned in
California.51
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit found that a local ordinance that limited the number of persons in a
homeless shelter to 15, when the building code would allow 25 persons, was unreasonable, and
found that allowing 25 persons in the shelter would constitute a reasonable accommodation.52
Based on these federal and state precedents, localities may not limit the number of people living
in a dwelling below that permitted by the UHC.
V.Local Regulation of Group Homes
In the past decade, much local concern has been directed at sober living homes, which are
typically unlicensed facilities designed to provide support to recovering substance abusers.
Because privately operated sober living homes often desire to attract middle-and upper middle-
income residents, and there is a high demand for such facilities, they have often been located in
middle-and upper-class areas, and in some cases have experienced local opposition. The League
of California Cities has sponsored legislation designed to require licensing or allow more local
control, but those efforts have failed. Communities often view such facilities as businesses
exploiting a loophole rather than as residences and so seek to be able to distinguish them from
residences, often defining them as "lodging houses" or "boarding houses." Lodging houses
typically require a conditional use permit and are not permitted in single-family residential
zones. Conversely, sober living homes seek to be classified as "households" or "single
housekeeping units" so they may locate in any residential neighborhood without requiring any
public notice or needing any use permit.
A.Defining Unlicensed Facilities as Lodging Houses or Single Housekeeping
Units
A 2003 opinion of the State Attorney General found that communities may prohibit or regulate
the operation of a lodging house in a single family zone in order to preserve the residential
character of the neighborhood.53 The City of Lompoc defined a lodging house as "a residence or
dwelling . . . 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." The Attorney General agreed
50 Cal. Health and Safety Code 17922(a)(1). See Briseno v. City of Santa Ana, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1381-82 (1992)
(holding that the state Uniform Housing Code preempts local regulation of occupancy limits).
51 Briseno, 6 Cal. App. 4th at 1383.
52 Turning Point, Inc. v. City of Caldwell, 74 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 1996).
53 86 Ops. Cal. Att'y Gen'l 30 (2003).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 45
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 11
that a lodging house, while providing a 'residence' to paying customers, could be considered a
commercial use and so could be prohibited in residential areas. ("There is no question but that
municipalities are entitled to confine commercial activities to certain districts [citations], and that
they may further limit activities within those districts by requiring use permits."54)
The Attorney General further concluded that the ordinance was consistent with Adamson because
it would allow any owner of property to rent to any member of the public and any member of the
public to apply for lodging. The proposed ordinance would be directed at a commercial use of
propert y inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood regardless of the identity
of the users.
Based on the Attorney General's opinion and Adamson, then, cities have increasingly defined a
"household"or "single housekeeping unit" to have these characteristics:
One joint lease signed by all residents;
Access by all to all common areas of the home; and
Shared housekeeping and shared household expenses.
No limits on length of residence.
New residents selected by existing residents, not a manager or landlord.
For instance, the City of Los Angeles proposed an ordinance defining a “single housekeeping
unit” as:
One household where all the members have common access to and common use of all
living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit, and household activities and
responsibilities such as meals, chores, expenses, and maintenance of the premises are
shared or carried out according to a household plan or other customary method. If all or
part of the dwelling unit is rented, the lessees must jointly occupy the unit under a single
lease, either written or oral, whether for monetary or non-monetary consideration.
The same ordinance proposed to define a boarding or rooming house as:
A one-family dwelling, or a dwelling with five or fewer guest rooms or suites of rooms,
where lodging is provided to individuals with or without meals, for monetary or non-
monetary consideration under two or more separate agreements or leases, either written
or oral.
Under these and similar ordinance definitions, many sober living homes operated by private
organizations, whether for-profit or nonprofit, are classified as boarding or lodging houses
because residents do not sign a joint lease; new residents are selected by a manager; household
expenses may not be shared (i.e., residents pay a set fee to the manager); and there may be limits
54 Id.
Attachment 3
PC5 - 46
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 12
on length of residence. In contrast, persons who desire to live together to support each other
during recovery and rent a home together would be classified as a “single housekeeping unit.”
Enforcement Issues. If a group home is challenged as not constituting a single housekeeping unit,
the operator will likely assert that it is indeed operating as a single unit. Unless there is public
information available showing that a residence is operated as a lodging house (e.g., web
advertising), an investigation would be required to demonstrate otherwise. If complaints were
based primarily on the disability of the occupants (which could include their status as recovering
drug and alcohol abusers), then California privacy rights and fair housing laws might be
implicated. In one Washington, D.C., case, a federal district court found a violation of the federal
Fair Housing Act where the Zoning Administrator carried out a detailed investigation of a
residence for five mentally ill men in response to neighbors' concerns, finding that the Zoning
Administrator's actions were motivated in part by the neighbors' fears about the residents' mental
illness.55 In California, a similar challenge might be additionally based on rights of privacy and
equal protection concerns.
B.Best Practices -Service Providers
We advise our nonprofit sponsors that if a facility can be considered a single housekeeping unit,
the facility must be treated as a residence with one family residing in it. The most defensible
structure for such a facility would be to:
Have one rental agreement or lease signed by all occupants. If, instead, the provider
signs the lease and each resident has a verbal or written agreement with the provider,
then the facility could be considered a "lodging house" under the definition upheld by
the Attorney General.
Give all residents equal access to all living and eating areas and food preparation and
service areas.
Keep track of, and share, household expenses.
Do not require occupants to move after a certain period of time, except for time limits
imposed by the rental agreement or lease with the owner.
Allow all existing residents to select new members of the household.
VI. Conclusion
In my own experience as a former city official, many group homes were invisible in the
community and caused few problems. Most complaints about overcrowding and excessive
vehicles did not involve a group home, but rather the poorest areas where space was rented out to
the limits of the Housing Code.
The group homes that caused the most concern were sober living facilities which tended to
concentrate in certain inexpensive single-family neighborhoods. In one case, all five homes on
55 Community Housing Trust v. Dep't of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 257 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D.D.C. 2003).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 47
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 13
one block face were purchased by a single owner. He was knowledgeable about his rights but
unconcerned about his obligations, and sneered at the City's and neighborhood's concerns. Since
the facilities were unlicensed, there was no regulatory oversight. When the occupant of one home
was arrested for drug dealing, it caused an uproar.
Many providers are conscious of their position in neighborhoods and make an effort to
accommodate community concerns. Others may be perceived as arrogant and dismissive of local
concerns, viewing all neighbors as "NIMBYs." Providers who view themselves as part of the
community and set house rules that encourage community involvement, restrict noise, control
parking, and establish smoking locations not visible from the street can go a long way toward
abating perceived problems.
Cities should modify their zoning ordinances to address unlicensed group homes and decide on a
strategy for dealing with group homes with seven or more persons (use permit and reasonable
accommodation). State legislation requiring some minimal licensing for sober living facilities
would also be beneficial to set standards for minimal levels of care. Cities need also to avoid the
kind of incidents that result in the Legislature's willingness to further constrain local control of
these homes.
Attachment 3
PC5 - 48
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 14
SUMMARY: GROUP HOME ANALYSIS UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
IF LICENSED:
6 or fewer clients:
Must be treated like a single-family home for all zoning purposes, except for
spacing requirements for certain licensed facilities (e.g., community care
facilities). Community care facilities for the elderly and drug and alcohol
treatment centers do not have spacing requirements.
7 or more clients:
Psychiatric facilities—both inpatient and outpatient—must be permitted in
any zone that permits nursing homes or hospitals as conditional or permitted uses.
(City of Torrance v. Transitional Living Centers)
Other licensed facilities are often subject to a use permit and may not be
permitted in certain zones. Advocates may request a reasonable accommodation
to avoid use permit requirements or to obtain modifications to traditional zoning
requirements. But the Ninth Circuit has not found a use permit per se to violate
the Fair Housing Act. (Gamble v. City of Escondido)
IF UNLICENSED:
Is it operated as a single housekeeping unit (household, family)?
If so, must be treated like a single dwelling unit.
Unlicensed homes are more likely to be considered as a single housekeeping unit
if they meet the following tests:
Physical access: all have access to common areas: kitchen, laundry, living
& family rooms is free.
No limits on term of occupancy
All residents on lease or rental agreement [AG's opinion]
Makeup of the household is determined by the residents rather than a
landlord or property manager
Normal household activities (meals, chores) and household expenses
shared (Adamson)
There are different local definitions of "family" or a single housekeeping unit.
(For instance, some localities do not use the existence of separate rental
agreements as a test for a single housekeeping unit.) Advocates oppose some of
the above characteristics.
Attachment 3
PC5 - 49
990051\1\963008.1
3/23/2011 15
Does it qualify as "supportive housing" under housing element law?
If so, must be treated like other residences of the same physical type [depending
on date of adoption of housing element].
6 or fewer clients:
Fair housing argument if treated more strictly than licensed facilities; but no case
in California holds this specifically.
Defined as a boarding house or another use?
Only the use can be regulated,not the user.
Group homes for the disabled cannot be treated in a discriminatory fashion from
other group homes (boarding houses, dormitories, etc.).
Attachment 3
PC5 - 50
schedule (10-10-17)20172018116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116Task 1: Project Initiation, Coordination, and Management1.1Project Initiation1.2MIG Team/City Staff Work Sessions (allowance)1.3Project Management1.4Website Assistance - As NeededTask 2: Defining Approaches, Ideas, and Options for Implementing the General Plan and Updating the Zoning Regulations2.1Data Collection, Zoning Regulations Diagnosis, and Outline7/172.2Stakeholder Interviews2.3Community Workshop - Introducing the Update Program6/32.4Issues Papers (5)HousingEdge ConditionsCannabisCAP ImplementationFlexible Density2.5Planning Commission and City Council Study SessionTask 3: Draft Zoning Regulations and Public Review3.1Style Sheet and Format7/173.2Admininstrative Draft (2 drafts)Article 1Article 2Article 3Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8Article 93.3Public Review DraftTask 4: Public Review of the Draft Zoning Regulations and Produce Public Hearing Draft4.1Community Workshops (2)4.2Initial Meeting with ALUC Staff4.3Public Hearing Draft Zoning RegulationsTask 5: CEQA Documentation5.1General Plan EIR Addendum - Assistance to City StaffTask 6: Public Hearings, ALUC Hearings, and Final Zoning Regulations6.1Planning Commission Public Hearings (2)6.2City Council Public Hearings (2) 6.3ALUC Formal Referral Hearing6.4Final Zoning RegulationsMIG TaskCity TaskWorkshop/Study Session/HearingPublic ReviewNovemberMarchDecemberMay JunePROJECT MONTH/DATESMayOctoberAugustJuneJanuary February March AprilJanuary February AprilJuly SeptemberMIG, Inc.San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations Fee ProposalAttachment 4 PC5 - 51