Neighbors, law-enforcement veteran and an operator clash over proposed sober-living house on May Avenue

Residents of May Avenue and nearby streets urged the City Council to adopt a local ordinance regulating for-profit sober-living homes after a contested application for a house on May Avenue drew several public comments at the May 6 meeting.

Multiple speakers, including a retired police detective, described neighborhood problems they attributed to poorly run sober living facilities: frequent calls for police service, incidents of violence and property damage, unpermitted construction and alleged health risks from improper lead-paint removal at the site of the proposed house. Several speakers said they support recovery services but want local rules that require humane living conditions, oversight and occupancy limits.

"For-profit facilities that warehouse as many occupants as possible into a structure with substandard living condition...exploit their occupants for profit," said Sam Ulland, speaking for Bay Avenue residents. Ulland and other neighbors asked the council to adopt an ordinance similar to those enacted by other Southern California cities that survived court challenges, citing Costa Mesa and Ninth Circuit rulings as precedents for local regulation.

Harry Terrell, a retired Burbank police detective, said his patrol experience showed some sober-living locations produce a high volume of calls for service — ranging from overdoses to thefts and trespasses — and that police resources often must be devoted disproportionately to those neighborhoods.

Several May Avenue residents described a pattern they said began before the house opened: unpermitted work requiring repeated code-enforcement interventions; a domestic-violence incident that drew multiple police units; and on-site sanding of lead paint without mandated safety precautions, residents said. Lisonbee Gray told the council the intended operator is not a Monrovia resident and she disputed the operator’s claim of experience running sober-living facilities.

"The chronic audacious impunity demonstrated by the intended for profit and inexperienced operator thus far is an ominous preview for what this facility could do to May Avenue," Gray said.

Neighbors also raised concerns about the proposed home's size and occupancy. Several speakers said an application reviewed by planning staff listed a 1,470-square-foot house with plans to house up to nine residents; speakers asked the council to require one adult per private bedroom and other behavioral and health standards.

The house’s intended operator, who spoke at length to the council under the name Cassandra Young Puig, defended her plan and said she has been in recovery for 17 years. Puig said the project is intended as women-only supportive housing, not a forced placement or a congregate rehab unit. She described a layout she said would place two women in the front room, three in a middle room and two in a back room, and said the house targets women who have already taken recovery steps.

"Homes like these are a public health resource. They are a pathway from relapse, a pathway from homelessness," Puig said, and asked neighbors and city staff to speak directly with her about rules and operations rather than rely on secondhand complaints.

City staff and other speakers noted the application for the May Avenue property is under review by the planning department; no ordinance or regulatory change was proposed for council action at the May 6 meeting. Several residents asked the council to initiate work on a local sober-living ordinance that would set standards for occupancy, private bedrooms and operator conduct. The council did not vote on a local ordinance that evening.

Why it matters: The debate highlights tensions cities face when balancing state and federal fair-housing protections, residents’ concerns about neighborhood impacts, and operators’ claims that facilities are necessary housing and recovery resources. Some speakers cited protections under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act; others urged local standards narrowly tailored to avoid legal conflict while protecting public safety and health.

The planning department retains the application file and will continue its review. Residents asked staff and council to consider ordinances used by neighboring cities and to consult legal counsel to ensure any new rules comply with state and federal protections.