Costa Mesa City Hall (File photo by Steve Zylius, Orange County Register/SCNG)
Costa Mesa’s controversial laws governing sober living homes do not discriminate against recovering addicts, but may actually benefit them, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said in a precedent-setting decision Wednesday.
It’s a victory for the city that could have far-reaching implications in Southern California and throughout the nation, as communities struggle with proliferating sober homes that have turned some neighborhoods into veritable treatment campuses and put recovering residents at risk.
The state of California has threatened to punish cities with sober home laws on the books, but this decision should give it pause, attorneys said.
“This is a great day for the rule of law,” said a statement from Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, who helped formulate Costa Mesa’s laws when she served as the city’s mayor. “The message from the Ninth Circuit is clear: local governments have the right to regulate recovery residences. Unscrupulous sober living home operators adversely impact our communities, pose risks for those seeking care, and reduce access to real housing options for residents in need.
A homeless heroin addict from Chicago, showed off scars he says were caused from Necrotizing Fasciitis, or “skin-eating” disease. He was in Costa Mesa in 2017. (File photo by Mindy Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG)
“We look to the future for state legislation that will give further tools to local governments to reasonably regulate the industry.”
Costa Mesa has spent some $20 million over the past dozen years defending its laws, which prohibit sex offenders, violent felons and drug dealers from operating sober living homes. They require operators to provide 24/7 supervision of patients, enforce no-drug and good-neighbor policies and provide transportation to folks who leave, to prevent “curbing” and attendant homelessness.
But the rule that sparked the conflict in this case is that sober homes must be separated by at least 650 feet, to prevent institutionalization for residents and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods.
Home for 45
Ohio House operated a large sober living complex on Wilson Street – five separate units with four bedrooms each, housing about 45 people.
Problem was, it was just 550 feet from another sober living home that had already gotten a conditional use permit from the city. And there were several other group homes within 650 feet as well, including two state-licensed addiction treatment facilities and an unpermitted facility the city was trying to deal with.
Ohio House was denied a permit for that complex, then was denied a request for special accommodation, then sued the city, charging that its zoning laws discriminate against the disabled and violate the Americans with Disabilities and Fair Housing acts, among others.
When Ohio House did not prevail in the lower court and before a jury, it appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which issued this published, precedent-setting decision. Ohio House failed to prove that the city discriminated, the court said, “because the differential treatment under the city’s group-living regulations facially benefits the protected class of disabled people.”
The Lady of Justice statue stands in silhouette against the clouds outside the Riverside Historic Courthouse in Riverside on Friday, Nov. 24, 2023. (Photo by Watchara Phomicinda, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)
One judge, concurring, went so far as to say that Ohio House would have to show that the protected group suffered unfavorable treatment compared to an unprotected group – not merely show that the protected group has been treated differently.
From here, Ohio House could ask for a hearing before the larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges. If it got that, and lost again, it could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorneys for Ohio House did not return calls and emails seeking comment on the decision and plans for next steps.
Important win
It’s a big win for sensible land use regulation, and should give cities and counties firmer footing when arguing with state housing officials, who say sober living laws are not allowed, said M.C. Sungaila, the city’s lead appellate counsel and a partner at Complex Appellate Litigation Group.
“It’s a published decision and it’s sweeping, covering a wide range of theories,” she said. “For that reason, it’s really important and precedential. I think it should certainly discourage future challenges.”
Gavel
The city’s reasoning is what carried the day, Costa Mesa Mayor John Stephens said. Its intent was not to discriminate against anyone, but to protect residents in sober homes from quasi-institutional settings while protecting the character of neighborhoods.
“It shows that we balanced the various concerns here, and did it in a responsible way,” Stephens said. “Nothing was by accident. Everything was extremely intentional and reasonable to all people involved.”
Attorney Seymour Everett III of Everett Dorey LLP has worked on these cases for the city for years. “This is a great decision for the city of Costa Mesa and all cities in California and the nation,” he said. “It affirms a city’s ability to protect all of its residents from unscrupulous sober living home operators, including people who suffer from addiction.”
Related Articles
Embattled addiction treatment empire countersues Aetna in $40 million tug-of-war
‘Especially disgusting’: Former workers, patients, level accusations at addiction treatment empire
Addicts came to Southern California from afar to get sober but wound up dead
‘Serious problems’ with addiction treatment in California flagged in new state audit
Will audit prove that California’s oversight of addiction treatment is as bad as SoCal says?