Councilmember Kim. Councilmember Yang here, Councilmember Johnson. 5 PRESIDENT To absent Councilor Johnson is excused. Morning everyone. We have one item on their agenda today which is a sober housing more time study. I welcome, Mulder Monday, too. At present item. Welcome, MISTER Devaney. And tells it doesn't help members. The case, what called the Sober living study is Chris, grow. It kind of living zoning study to encompass insurrection. It's the same. Got some items all run through presentation today. But it first of all, just the fresh and the timeline. You instituted moratorium back in AUGUST gave us one year study that there was planning Commission public Tobar Planning Commission that made the recommendation just last week. So we're heading
towards MARCH 4th, first reading MARCH, 11th public hearing City Council Coming to you, sir. There. Number of categories of congregate living in our code. And to be aware of here that are addressed or at least considered in this study, including a sober house. Just for definition terms. So we understand he's sober houses for people recovering chemical dependency. It is financially self-supporting. So it does not get outside funding. It has no services. It's intended to be like a fair. So that's a sober house as we call it Saint Paul. Is sometimes confused with a supportive housing facility, sport o housing facility. Also to be for people recovering chemical dependency. And there are some
other categories as well. But these usually receive government funding and they have services also too. They categories be aware of their some others are selter for better person. Slice community that's agents overnight shelter. Emergency housing. And then really helps us sort of its category. But important keep in mind anything that we do. You might want to think aout what this push people to trying reclassify them. Self-serving houses for houses are not allowed. It's many places and usually have conditional use permit. Test them. That's like individual event better use with community living space is able assist. MR. To me before you keep going just just to sort of hammer home the point because
I remember when I was on the planning commission and we were dscussing the distance requirement between sober homes. And I remember the time much like you described here. But just to be super clear us over home at the time was described as it could just be, you know, 4, 5 unrelated adults who decide where coming from chemical dependency or from alcoholism, whatever the case MAY be, who say, you know, we're going to live together. So as to sort of support one another and staying clean almost much more informal than some of these other tapes that you're describing. Is that still also true? And therefore, I know we talked about this a you know, this is this is a home like any other home. In fact, it's probably like the least disruptive home you'll have on your block. It some ways of folks are committing to that
by living together so that's also true. That is the intent. But I will talk about issue of how that content has been Sometimes beyond recognition, but is still the intent of what is on and over. So how should okay? Anyone else have any questions because there's a. This is a really important, I think, for Want to make sure we stopped their case. I would put all of those in to kind of 3 categories, sober house and they have a minimum separation distance. So they have to be certain distance from each other 330 feet. That's a sober house. Then all of these other kinds of congregate living that have services and usually outside funding. Have to be generally a quarter mile from the 1320
feet. Downtown. It's its only 60 feet down. Rooming houses do not have separation distance requirements. Today services many times just for people. And to give you an idea of what those distances mean, these are typical blocks in Sint Paul for city has blocks of the size. These are 600 feet east to west. So and then from that's itself, 280 feet. So if you had to be. Quarter mile apart, that's essentially 2 blocks. It's about 2 blocks apart. And if you're 600 feet apart, you know, one walk. These are updated numbers. But just to give you an idea orders of magnitude in 2021, we had a better handle on how many of the issues we had. That about 60 sober houses, about 60 supportive housing
facilities and very few of the other So those are really the 2 that we hear about the We have the This comment. Thank you. Just question. So given kind of fraud definition of sober house. We are. Register as a sober house that personally that doesn't help pressed was describing of this lady's house is full of people Yes, if they have more than 6 people. So if they're less than a qualified as a family or household and arcade, and if they're anything about that, they need to register. And I'll get into how we've been registering. That's proposed change to a different for registration. Thank you.
This is a very map. 10 years old or so is the old. Want to make sure nobody crabs us at home Representation of what's going on So make yourself very clear, MR. Thank And turns out they did. Just to help us Condit it a. Under the current definition is the light blue of the royal blue and purple Dots on this map gives you an idea of how those were distributed in 2016 or so. There there. A centre to it. But not as strong as the sober house patterns from 2015. You can see there definite plus stirs a lot Marshall Avenue along. I-94 new side, especially in Fort quite a few silver houses at
that time. It's important to think about this because if people are moving from sober houses to supportive housing. You can see where there be potential over concentration in there saying this is So the House together, maybe we're a lot of Maybe you're thinking about realigning categories. And those lines. This is a map of variances we saw in 2025 for supportive housing facilities. There are blue marks on this slide there's a definite pattern. 7 of them are either near West 7th for University Avenue. That's where we have been seeing a lot of demand. For support of causes, they were all sober house. That converted or wanted to convert. And then there are 3 others. One lot of my soul and your grand near Jackson, not on the side. A definite pattern where people to do
this. So as of alluded to one of the recent issues we've had the primary reason that you an active moratorium is we had sober house, wanted convert a supportive husing and that separation. Went from 330 feet from us over hostile 13, 20 from a whole range of different facilities. And many of them could not meet that. So that didn't change much about what they were doing. Just a funding source it a little bit about their services. And that's why you saw so many various requests. The funding stream. Had. Changed least some of those cases. But if they were receiving outside it funding before they technically already were not sober houses under a code.
They MAY not have known that. Stay at least some of these were receiving funding from 3rd party and not directly from the state which MAY have caused confusion. But if they were not financially self-supporting with just to that point, MR. Money, if we. If we learn because of an application say to convert a sober house, too, supportive housing. Well, I guess first of all, is that conversion? That doesn't come through us, right? That is that's a change that they're making on their own. And then they are seeking the variance from the separation requirements. But we don't have a say in whether or not they're converting. Is that right? a way we do. It's not a council decision on whether they convert or not. If they
wish to convert, they have to meet the zoning code regulations and if they can't apply for a variance to normal process. And then if we find out because they're playing for a variance, that, for example, they were other funding. So they weren't actually a sober house under code. Is there any? Enforcement action that's taken? Karin the current state, right? You not only I mean, can't become supportive housing if we turn down that separation requirement variance, but also. You're not allowed to operate this way. Currently. Yes, so the way Dsi has been approaching, this is a can receive their funding but only up to what's considered a family. So this once they have wanted to convert, that can back to being sober house
because getting outside for And we know this for sure. So they're limited to 6 adults at facilities. And there are several. Facilities are in limbo like this waiting for the study to happen to see if they can never go above 6 people. So in the meantime, many sober house that applied for the variants that was not granted a variance but was figured out to not actually b a sober houses, just kept 6 people. So you're saying ok? And to give you idea of the distances from those variances last year. Was asking you to be only 43 feet from another one that. It's kind of a special case. But most of the requests were to be between 500 and 1000. And again, this is a map variance requests. Another issue that has come up in the
last couple years as large, sober house. So I this kind of stressing the intent and Strachan intent of what a sober houses we had one potential operator who seeking 30 plus residents. And again, this is a place with no staffing in those services. People living together informally and our current zoning regulations and are reasonable accommodation practices MAY have a lot. They went away. I a have not been pursuing sites in Saint Paul lately. But our cold MAY have a lot And that's because we have languishing Ako. This is a really, really request for reasonable accommodation. Shall automatically be granted. I have certain very easy to to meet requirements are. It also says Marco Today's a maximum total number of residents from it the Silver Houses specified by the Pirates a 50 democracy. So in practice. Dsi has been
improving. All or almost all of reasonable accommodation requests to whatever amount allowed by for Sir Keith Which goes above and beyond what the city has If not for it being as coach. That's another issue. There's a legal context to understand here. Americans with Disabilities Act that the House Amendments Act both give protections to people with disabilities. And if you are recovering from substance abuse, you have a disability and you have these rights to housing. The zoning code to not discriminate against. These protected classes. Another legal context of a say federal appeals court case that involved the city of Saint Paul back in 1990, family style versus City of Saint Pul. And it established that are minimum separation
requirements for legal because they protected the patients from living in every institutionalized environment, kept them in a normal community environment. So that. That reasoning for Minimum separation distances was upheld. Reasonable accommodations and other legal concept understand we have to offer this under the federal law. Thoughts. These 2 elements in our code today seem to go beyond leading there. One is that we require all sober houses to request reasonable accommodations, even if they do. Need any exception. Chico. That's not really the point. So you'll see it's it's proposed that there's a different type of registration system. And then the shall automatically granted code language. he on federal law? There
criteria there. A lot case law such is reasonableness need for combination to avoid discrimination. Whether consists of fundamental law, alterations That's different than weeks. State law has been changed over time to that. It's another thing to be aware of for him today. Sober house or sober homes defined by the state at all. When we created our definition in 2023, they created a sober home definition. And then last year. They changed. Will take effect in 2027. Those will be called the cover us. So you tell just by the flurry of activity at the state that they're very interested in this sober living situation. And concerned about it. Recovery residences will have 2 levels of optional certification.
Level one. Alliance, more or less with our sober house to No staffing. Level 2 certification with the staff and facilities that are holding fan that. What pushed them more into our supportive housing category. Also, just be aware of number of funding programs at the state. One of them is a freestanding room and board program that is being phased It was always intended for rural areas. Started to get used to the Metro. Report. Intent bhind different than how people are using it. So the fence. Also this gets to some some things we've heard quite a bit during the various discussions last year, last APRIL, at least 2 major service providers, Evergreen stopped redistributing state funds to their just to find situations. So tey were fighting the services but not the housing. They gave money to other people to find housing. And to some legal concerns about
trick that since that was cut And this step doing that and the provider, these came to the state for other funds for houses for different program. It has a sports game of the state for by its funding. And that kicked very definitively our supportive housing try to guard. They probably should have been already receiving funding from new new ever green. They just didn't necessarily it wasn't state flooding. also came up several initially Dsi said if you're providing meals. Next case supportive housing. They changed that determination. That's not really true saying I think something There was a discussion at the ca a piece of that peace has delivered on a regular basis makes part of housing. Now with this. There's a proposal clarify that code.
But yes, I change determination. So nutritional services is what it says, code. And that's more than just bringing meals. That's providing counselors. Appreciate the explanation as to why that delicious looking pieces on the screen at a time when all of us might a that new side to lot local And this actually a local, sober house as it So I'd like to take you through recommendations by the planning Commission that I do realize all of this is pretty dense material. So please stop Russians. One is to amend the reasonable competitions access to make a line Vick. What federal law 2 is to create a sober house registration. Rather than require reasonable
accommodations for also people would only apply if they need reasonable accommodations. Otherwise it would be registration. Yes, I would still have a way of keeping track of these facilities ensure that. It. Officials also recommend cap at 10. This one's for sober house. Us. Right now. There is effectively no cap. Go up to any bcause of the shall be granted language. So. Commission is recommending, keep mostly tactics still could be exceptions to a variance or through a legitimate reasonable accommodations request. But all those reasonable accommodations would be evaluated case-by-case basis using the standard legal criteria and that showed
courage. Some minor recommendations to be aware of coming from the Planning Commission. Clarity on Sober House for supportive housing facility definitions for it. She said House would actually change its name in the code to sober house financially self-supporting. Make it crystal clear sport of housing facility has similar language written. wasn't the key point of the study, but what I would living so. They say that nation to require conditional use permit fewer districts for shelter for battered persons. It just didn't seem to make sense. They saw acp recently we're wondering why they sought it was in a multifamily to have. Facility that only wanted to have a thick 12 people asking for cpa and multifamily did not seem to make sense at all the standards. So recommended that some other minor updates and clarifications. There is a
copy of the Planning Commission resolution that front of you. Wanted to get into all the details. But that. I would classify under my characters situations. More interesting is what it's not recommended by planning commission that was debated and discussed quite a bit. At the public public. Saying one commission has not recommended and nor did staff. Any change the minimum separation distances became why not? If they truly are going be shipped family life can be 10 or fewer people. They should be. Lightly regulated. And there's no reason to distrust separation distance for avoiding those 30 plus persons overpasses, 330 feet, which and I think we'll hear the most testimony about this at your public hearing in MARCH. No changes recommended to separation distances between supportive housing facilities,
others. So so keeping it at 13, 20 and most of the city. Lot of thought went into this. And I just ate more debate going forward. Why Management seems to be the chief factor. So that's something we heard. Through the public hearing, but also after the public hearing, we have staff level talk to our colleagues in the homeless Action response Team police and fire departments to get their input missus. One of the key messages that had for us management matters. You could help a large facility or you could have soli that emphasizes housing first. But that doesn't necessarily tell you. I think what matters. Factors more like have appropriate staffing levels have the right types of staff, to the facility's, communicate with city personnel, regular basis. We
figured out a lot of that. The last couple years. What probably facilities. But state regulation doesn't do that alone. We had to figure that out. And obviously state is paying a lot of tension. A lot of attention. This Parts of state funding it seems like regulation is in need of improvement. So with that status. This 1320 number perhaps should be revisited in a couple of years. In the meantime, without that certainty today at 13, 20 would avoid flooding certain quarters like university and West said overwhelming the neighborhood. Also 13 20 feet is the same distance that Minneapolis uses. It's reasonable this needed for now it's protection
recreating an institutional environment and that is not So that's the basic coming. Thank in or Not yet and MAY not be for a couple of years. It sounds like that. It just a little bit more about the management regulation that might need to be. That potentially of improvement. Is that in terms of how enforce our existing requirements or suggesting that we might need to revisit? Well, for the most part, management is regulated by the state. At the city level. We have gotten involved informally because of certain issues that certain facilities and city. But the state mostly regulates that. And that's the seems to be in need of improvement. Yes, okay. Also to policy questions for you to keep in mind to think about first 3, it is planning Commission put out to the public and ask for
feedback on 4th and it's kind of an iterative question that came out of the public input they received. One how many adult residents should b for more than sober house. Planning Commission said generally 10 for sure. How far? So the houses be separated from each other. They set at 330 feet. How far should support of House and certain other 100 living be separated from each They said to 13, 20 1322. Should supportive housing, regulated by the city and other ways. It's a question of face for instance, by size or if they have a housing firsts philosophy where ideas that were put out very a public influx planning commission ultimately decided against regulating in other ways. Besides the minimum separation distance. With that said the glad to take any other questions or thoughts that you have. It seems un is common it's
just. Council PRESIDENT. I really appreciate the presentation presentation here. Believe that you did a really great job explaining to us what exactly is in front of us and giving us contacts. I'm wondering if you can share a bit more about that. Funding changes. I know that's at the state level, but him and curious about what sort movement is happening within the community around advocacy on this at the state level. Do. I did speak to a committee member who? Who is some fields is recovery for people with chemical dependency and they talked about The impact that this has had in the number of beds available for people who actually need it. And so it's very concerning to me and good morning to, you know, there's any advocacy happening about
changes to funding, to make it more equitable and work for. So for house us. Tells present councilmember in short, I don't know the specifics of what people are advocating at this time. I do know there is some fraud-related cncerns at the state level audit their programs. But beyond that, I couldn't answer. ok, thank I just wanted to. 2 uplift that I think this would be something really important for us to revisit and also added to our legislative agenda. There are committee members and distilled to are really concerned about the lack of beds available. And don't recall that this is something that we already have in the jacket we've been seen go around. But I like for something to be done about So I would love to connect more with the leaders have been talking to and then be able to
share with you all what they hope to happen. Thank you as and I don't know either. But i do know the conversations as a that she's open to it Amendment legislative agenda even after today. So that would be a welcome addition. Thank is coming. We'll have more about the conversation around 10 the default cap and curious. A lower caps discussed by staff or planning commission members that. Tell present COUNCILMAN Coleman. 10 was a number that had existed in code. So perhaps was a baker that we gravitated towards. Instead, it was an automatic approval and zoning district. And we got coat to have up to 10 people. The code allowed greater amounts in certain districts with the conditional
use permit and with 3 sall donations. So that was something that process. Put forth to have greater than In effect, automatic approval how it's turned out over the past 17 years and whatever proved. But the idea originally behind 10 this somewhat more flexible them? That's family size, which was for at the time. Since been increased to 6. So as Tenet Magic number now. But the idea is to be a little little larger a typical national size. PRESIDENT O the MR. Really appreciate tis summary. I have a specific questions comments. And just generally think that, you a lot more clarity in regulation around sober houses and supportive housing needed. We have one of these and art. My word and, you know, create a lot of confusion issues. I do agree with. A lot of the planning commission's
opinions. I I do think some of their mind or recommendations and, you know, interested in. Exploring clarifying sober house for Sir supportive housing facility. You know, there are so many other categories of supportive housing even beyond just the. Sober house. Certainly chemical dependency support. So I think that something that I would certainly be be interested in, but just really appreciate all of this work and trying to trying to help - clarify this. This issue that, you know, is also not as regulated the state level is maybe it should be safe. Agree that this is something we should bring to our legislative agenda, too. Tells PRESIDENT Customer Jos on the question clarity between the 2 definitions. So that was a question that was
asked to the public. Long lines of the saw on the screen and we did not get any feedback from the public hearing one way or hoping to. But providers who spoke with more focused on other issues that the same thing about this. So the whole fair or the assumption from staff and Planning Commission that if we didn't hear any net negative feedback providers must take. Has done a good job of providing clarity. Certainly read. If that's not the case. We hope to hear from them during the next public MR. Germany, couple. Quick questions. And then they're Was there any discussion about you mentioned that the state is calling these recovery residences level one and level 2? It was there any discussion
about actually changing our terms to align with that just to remove some of the confusion and make it clear, too applicants. What we're talking about council PRESIDENT. Good question. There was no discussion about it. But it was certainly something I thought about. So and generally speaking, I advise not attempting to mash the states terms because the change from time to time. That was a lesson. We learned when we overhaul the entire congregate living section in 2016, we used to align to stay terms and they kept changing. And we had a tough time keeping up with which was one of the reasons we created the supportive housing category, which had a
bunch of things on Brokers cells free from the state. So I think it MAY actually be beneficial that the word sober will no longer be part of the state terminology so that clear you're either talking about citizens definitions with the states. You know, there there other ways we could go the other direction to try to match the state. Just be a matter making sure we kept up with an overtime. Thanks tonight to for to you and your your institutional memory on I can see it. I can see the downsides just wondering some of what started all of this was the state changing and then they're being confusion. I think about what we meant and what they meant. So that's where the question came from. And then I guess my my last question is just can you? Walk us through how these changes would change the situation. We started with us. So originally seeing all of these applications coming in from
sober house is that your point had? Think mostly because they had lost one source of funding now, which they should have been getting in first place up there. So perhaps coming to this, they for a different kind of funding and therefore needing to provide food and therefore needing in our code to become supportive housing to in any they're taking - funding. And then finding themselves running up against the separation distance issue. I'm trying to figure out how this would. How this would change the situation. We start. Calais PRESIDENT, thank you for raising that. This is a surprising outcome of planning commission's deliberations recommendations so they went into and asking people supportive housing should be separated by a lesser distance, like 300 feet or
604,000 feet. And if you had asked me and SEPTEMBER, I would have thought probably would be going that direction. In the end, they on that particular issue, they decided. To recommend not making a change. So we would but for good As I laid out and the presentation here. So still those facilities that have been seeking variances. They wait. Either have to obtain a variance or deal with only serving 6 people or go back to being age. A truce over house. Those should be the choice is so in a sense making sure that these facilities are able to operate with. Number of people they want, whether it's 12 or 20 to think was general range of those facilities. This would not allow them to do that. Thank you. So we
Expect to see. Most of those folks who are coming in for variances before still needing to come in for variances unless they want to become a true sober house and they could now serve up to 10. People only as a true sober house as opposed to potentially more or if they want to be supportive housing up to 6. Sport has as a family. Asking the question and answering it with actually want things to stay as they are. I think it's still a very worthwhile exercise because we've asked it and we looked into it and answered it. So. That's that question. Stopping with any editorializing. It all make sure I kind of where we whether things are changing. So thank you. So can you just give us a sense of timeline from here? public knows he's gone already. So you might start hearing from people your first meeting is MARCH 4th public
hearing MARCH. 11th. And U.S. Everything's done a planning commission. Everything's on Planning Commission. It's not legistar yet, hopefully this week it. Face any other questions, comments or discussion. Seeing none. I thank you so much again for the time and work in the presentation and I call them