We are in opposition to and find the Ordinance CPC-2009-800-CA – Council File 07-34-27 as currently constituted to be discriminatory against Sober Living Homes and to the families that such institutions help to create and maintain. . We accept that addiction is a disease, a complex one which is in the relapsing/remitting category of health problems. Treatment and Recovery from this disease is possible. For long-term sobriety and recovery support from family, friends, peers and the community are all ingredients for a successful transition. In early recovery, one major factor is having strong peer support and a healthy alcohol and drug-free environment where early recovering residents can model and support good positive citizenship. After a period of treatment, Sober Living Homes provide housing, supportive environments and resources to those in recovery from their addictions. Sober Living types of environments have been an integral part of recovery since the 40’s and 50’s. Today, these informal sober housing units continue to be established and supported by recovering people for their recovering brothers and sisters. It continues to be an essential component of recovery for those who are in early recovery. Clinically, a Sober Living Environment in family neighborhoods (R1, R2) is crucial and an essential modicum of treatment for alcoholics and addicts and such environments help to make a safer community for all. Because of the variety of physical, psychological, psychosocial and emotional damage addicts/alcoholics may have suffered from their families and/or as a result of their drug use, the sober living environment stay can vary. It is neither permanent nor transient and is generally determined by support personnel (i.e. Sponsors / Family /Counselors/Therapists etc., ) in conjunction with the client who then makes progress toward independent living. The family characteristics of sober living homes are important for several reasons. Residents develop trust and self-esteem through sharing household responsibilities and being accountable to others. Many alcoholics/addicts are products of dysfunctional families. These individuals derive an additional benefit of learning cooperative living skills which they may have never acquired growing up. Peer reviewed research also shows that members of sober living families develop bonds which can be stronger and healthier than those with families and/or other friends. Quality Sober Living Homes maintain a recovery-centric environment; have behavioral requirements wherein residents agree to comply as a condition of acceptance into the “family”. The principal, but by no means only requirement is that of abstinence from alcohol and drugs. Other rules include exhibiting good citizenship in and outside the home. Not doing so, the resident can be asked to leave as a result of violation. Under the current ordinance multiple leases are not allowable. If one resident is evicted for a violation, then all residents must be evicted. Homes in which residents have multiple leases are not a bigger threat to the community’s health and safety than are homes without multiple leases. The impetus for this action was the negative behavior from poorly-managed, rogue facilities claiming to be “Sober Living” homes. Any such behaviors which were the subject of neighbor complaints should not be tolerated in any neighborhood. Current nuisance abatement laws should be enforced and good, supportive Quality Sober Living environments should not suffer for a problematic few. Group homes (including Sober Living Environments) for persons with disabilities are located within low density residential zones, and use individual leases per resident. If enacted. this ordinance, as presently constituted, would force the relocation of thousands now living in such facilities. Furthermore, there is an undetermined number of independent living group homes for the mentally ill that are not protected from this ordinance by the state Mental Health Services Act. Other populations of disabled persons also live in group homes with individual leases. We support Case law wherein many fair housing cases the courts have ruled, and the clinical benefits prove that low density residential zones (R1, R2) are where these homes need to be located. As presently constituted, this ordinance will have a disparate impact on groups of disabled persons seeking single family housing. We feel if implemented, such actions would be done under an improper discriminatory motive totally ignoring fair housing and reasonable accommodation case law for such “families”. This ordinance cannot justify its proposed redefinition of family and single housekeeping units which will severely restrict the way unrelated people can live together in low density residential areas, since the principal means for this type of shared housing is through multiple leases or other individual financial arrangements. Including, but not limited to the major restrictions placed on individuals who have had contact with California Department of Corrections, this too, can and will cause a great strain and negative impact on those for whom treatment and recovery is crucial. We implore the City of Los Angeles to reject the ordinance as presently constituted and implore reasonable access to treatment and recovery for all families.