The Willow Glen Resident

Council Watch

Public can speak on contentious group-home ordinance

Council to hold a hearing on Feb. 17

By Cecily Barnes

The San Jose City Council will hold a public hearing Feb. 17 on the controversial group-homes ordinance that has pitted neighborhood proponents against advocates of the disabled.

If approved, the ordinance would more tightly restrict what types of group homes are allowed in neighborhoods. While some San Jose residents believe this restriction will preserve the quality of their neighborhoods, mental health advocates say it would force disabled and mentally ill group-home residents onto the streets.

The city attorney's office began drafting the ordinance in 1995 to bring San Jose into compliance with Federal Fair Housing laws which forbid local governments from discriminating against people with disabilities.

The city zoning code states that only six or fewer people can live together in a group home in residential neighborhoods. However, many group homes have existed in violation of laws for years, said City Planner Stan Ketchum.

"If you've been illegal for a long time, that's just because the city has not gotten around to code enforcement," Ketchum said.

Now that the zoning code is being revisited, facilities that have long been out of compliance will likely be cited.

The group-homes ordinance proposes that groups of six or more be allowed to apply for permission to continue living together. The original ordinance stipulated that this exemption would not apply to group-home residents referred from the criminal justice system.

On June 5, the Planning Department recommended adoption of the ordinance, with one caveat--that court-referred residents be permitted to remain in family neighborhoods for one more year. However, the revised ordinance that will go before council Feb. 17 nixed this clause and will no longer distinguish between what type of residents may live in neighborhoods.

"There will not be any distinction about where they came from," Ketchum said. "We will no longer be proposing to have a separate category for criminal-justice referrals."

Still, only group homes with six or fewer residents will be permitted to operate in residential neighborhoods without specified approval. But under the Federal Fair Housing Law, the city must include provisions for an appeals process.

"We're building in a provision for groups of disabled individuals to be able to request reasonable accommodation," Ketchum said. "The planning director would make an initial determination about reasonable accommodation, and that decision could be appealed to the planning commission. It's important that this process be a simple, straightforward process. In order to meet the federal law, it can't be lengthy and cumbersome."

Several groups have opposed the ordinance, including the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Quality Alternative Housing Coalition, previously known as the Coalition for Responsible Social Services and Quality Neighborhoods. The coalition maintains that the group-homes ordinance is illegal.

"We're against the ordinance because it doesn't meet the guidelines for fair housing," said Carole Calkins, an executive board member for the coalition. "It will limit housing for the disabled, and it...[is] carefully crafted to maintain only certain types of people living in residential communities."

Opposition groups fear what may happen to group homes currently operating with more than six residents. Many of these groups, opponents say, might not be able to afford the cost of an appeals process. And if the group home was not granted exemption from the zoning law, its residents would be out on the street.

According to the ordinance, group homes with more than six residents must fit the description of a traditional "single housekeeping unit" to remain in R1 residential areas. Such a unit is defined as "the functional equivalent of a traditional family; whose members are a nontransient interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of common areas, and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores and expenses."

The Quality Alternative Housing Coalition argues that this definition is "unjustifiably restrictive" and "an exclusionary tool to keep group homes out of single-family residential homes." Specifically, the coalition objects to the definition's use of the word "family."

"We have proposed an alternative that is in compliance with Federal Fair Housing laws," Calkins said. "It does not use the 'single housekeeping unit' term. That term is limiting and exclusive."

Calkins said the coalition has sent out mass mailings and expects a significant show of support at the Feb. 17 City Council meeting.

[ Back to Contents Page | Willow Glen Resident Home Page | Archives ]