A proposal to severely restrict the siting of drug and alcohol treatment centers — as well as “sober living” homes — within Camas’ city limits stalled after Camas City Council members discovered elements of the proposed city code amendments could violate state and federal laws.
“‘Disability’ under the Fair Housing Act has been interpreted as including individuals recovering from drug or alcohol addiction and as such discriminatory housing practices involving those recovering from addiction is unlawful,” David Schultz, Camas’ assistant city attorney, wrote to the city’s interim community development director, Robert Maul, on March 25.
The Camas Planning Commission held a public hearing on the issue on Jan. 19, and unanimously agreed to send proposed code amendments restricting drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes from siting within many areas of Camas, including the city’s single- and multi-family residential zones, and from operating within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and libraries.
The Planning Commission then passed the issue on to the Camas City Council.
During the council’s workshop on April 4, city planner Madeline Sutherland explained that elements of the code amendments could “create issues with the Fair Housing Act” and advised council members to send the proposed code amendments back to the Planning Commission for further discussions.
Schultz also pointed out that the state considers substance abuse treatment and recovery centers to be “essential public facilities” and does not allow cities to prohibit these types of facilities outright.
The city’s planning commissioners took up the issue in fall 2021. Maul said then that city officials had asked city staff to “look at language for drug and alcohol detox facilities” after dozens of community members railed against Discover Recovery, a private drug and alcohol facility opening in a former bed-and-breakfast turned assisted-living center in Camas’ mostly residential Prune Hill neighborhood, within close proximity of an elementary school, church and city park.
Some of the planning commissioners seemed to agree with Camas residents who have contended, without proof, that patients seeking treatment at such drug and alcohol recovery centers pose a danger to children in the nearby neighborhood.
In his March 25 memorandum, Schultz includes proposed changes to the code amendments that would limit the number of people living in a sober living home to “no more than eight unrelated individuals,” but would not lump sober living homes in with drug and alcohol residential treatment facilities and, therefore, would not prohibit sober living homes from operating within the city’s residential zones or near schools, parks and libraries.
Updates to the code amendments proposed in the city attorney’s memorandum would still prohibit residential treatment centers — defined as facilities that include more than eight unrelated individuals and “provide support services including, but not limited to, counseling, rehabilitation and medical supervision for the need of drug or alcohol treatment” — from locating in Camas’ single-family residential zones and within 1,000 feet of public and private schools, public parks, public libraries and near similar centers, but would allow these facilities to operate with a conditional-use permit in the city’s multi-family residential zones.
On April 4, city council members unanimously agreed to send the proposed code amendments back to the planning commissioners for more discussion and possible revisions.
