Murrieta council introduces and amends ordinance to regulate sober living homes; sets six‑month compliance goal

Murrieta — The Murrieta City Council on Sept. 2 introduced an ordinance to revise Title 16 of the Murrieta Municipal Code to establish standards for sober living homes — unlicensed recovery residences that are not regulated by the state Department of Health Care Services — and amended the staff proposal to accelerate the compliance timeline for existing unlicensed homes.

Planning staff (identified in the transcript as Mr. Shantaransu) framed the draft ordinance as modeled on provisions upheld in recent litigation (Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa) that allowed local governments to adopt spacing, permitting and operational requirements for certain group homes while remaining consistent with federal and state fair-housing protections. Staff said the draft would require registration/use permits for unlicensed facilities, operator and house-manager disclosures, operational standards (including a required good‑neighbor policy), spacing metrics, monitoring and enforcement provisions, and an initial compliance period for existing residences.

The council heard robust public testimony from neighbors who said unlicensed recovery homes had opened in single-family neighborhoods without public notice, producing parking congestion, security concerns and proximity to a licensed in‑home daycare and school bus stops. Speakers included Craig Harlan; Kara Barrett; Flavio Fael (resident); Andrew Wertheim and others. Testimony called for stricter buffers near schools, day cares and parks and for active city enforcement.

Councilmembers pressed staff on enforcement limits for state‑licensed facilities, whether background checks for house managers could be required, monitoring capacity, and how spacing/grandfathering would apply to homes already operating. Staff said the city’s authority is limited for state‑licensed community‑care facilities (those licensed by DHCS) but that the proposed ordinance covers unlicensed sober living homes, limits those homes to six residents plus a house manager, and establishes a registration and inspection process. Staff also noted the ordinance would provide an opportunity for reasonable accommodation requests under state and federal housing law.

On the motion, Councilmember DeForest moved to introduce Municipal Code Amendment MCA (as listed in staff materials) with the timeline for existing homes shortened to six months for compliance but allowing extensions up to one year for extenuating circumstances; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously 4–0. Staff said existing unlicensed homes that register would enter an ongoing inspection and supervision process and that registration could be revoked for false disclosures (for example, about criminal convictions of managers).

What’s next: The ordinance was introduced as amended and will return for subsequent readings and adoption; the planning department was assigned the enforcement and monitoring role and will implement the registration process.

Noted legal references: the staff presentation repeatedly cited Government Code section references for closed sessions and the Costa Mesa litigation and emphasized that reasonable-accommodation procedures will apply for disabled residents.