Since Costa Mesa began drafting local laws in 2014 to regulate sober living homes putting down stakes in residential neighborhoods, the city has been the target of numerous lawsuits that have been litigated in federal courts.
Operators have alleged the crackdown on residences where addicts live and convalesce — through the implementation of permitting requirements and a 650-foot buffer between businesses — discriminates against those whose substance abuse constitutes a disability.
Meanwhile, the city has spent nearly $20 million, Costa Mesa Mayor John Stephens estimated Thursday, responding to legal challenges and defending local statutes.
The front-most house on a five-residence lot at 115 E. Wilson Street in Costa Mesa that, since 2012, has served as a sober living facility called Ohio House. Operators have been in a legal dispute with the city since 2019.
(Google Maps)
But while business proprietors claim discrimination, the nation’s top legal minds take a different view. Multiple rulings in Costa Mesa’s favor have found municipalities have the right to enact laws to preserve the character of neighborhoods and address the noise, traffic and parking impacts of group homes.
Such was the case this week, when a panel of judges with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a dispute between the city of Costa Mesa and operators of the Ohio House, a sober living facility serving about 45 residents at 115 E. Wilson St.
Affirming previous decisions by a federal court judge and a jury, the panel contended that the city was within its right to create and enforce regulations around the operation of group homes.
“Whether the residents of high-density group-living facilities are disabled or not does not inherently dictate whether such facilities will contribute to higher traffic, lack of sufficient parking or increased noise,” they reasoned in a 69-page opinion released Wednesday.
“There is sufficient evidence adequate to support the jury’s conclusion that the city did not unlawfully interfere with Ohio House’s right to provide housing for disabled individuals.”
Costa Mesa city leaders lauded the opinion.
“The 9th Circuit is the highest federal court in the land in 23 states, and it becomes a very persuasive authority for state courts,” Stephens said Thursday. “So, we basically got approval on how we’ve handled this and how our ordinances are crafted. That’s a great result for the city.”
Since 2012, Ohio House has offered housing for men in substance-abuse recovery on a property comprising five 2,400-square-foot, two-story detached units with outdoor space, a garage and parking area.
When the city drafted rules for group homes and boarding houses, officials sought to apply those laws to sober living homes already doing business, requiring them to get the necessary permits.
But the operators of Ohio House were denied a use permit because there was already a legal sober living home within 550 feet of the property line. When they sought a reasonable accommodation waiver of the distance requirement, that too was denied.
Appeals were denied by the Costa Mesa Planning Commission and the City Council, the latter of which in August 2019 gave Ohio House until Sept. 18 to cease operations.
Instead, on Sept. 6, 2019, the operator filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court’s Central District, alleging city laws discriminated against group homes serving addicts with disabilities, created barriers to minority housing and interfered with federal and state fair housing laws, among other claims.
“As a group, the city’s policy-makers … conspired for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, a class of person, identified as disabled persons in recovery, of the equal protection of the laws,” the 2019 complaint reads.
A 2022 summary judgment from U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna, along with a subsequent determination by a jury, denied Ohio House operators’ claims of discrimination and in favor of Costa Mesa’s ordinances.
The 9th Circuit opinion issued Wednesday affirms those actions, a move praised by Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, a former mayor of Costa Mesa, who called it “a great day for the rule of law.”
“The message from the Ninth Circuit is clear: local governments have the right to regulate recovery residences,” Foley said in a statement, castigating sober living home operators for posing risks to their clients and the community.
“We look to the future for state legislation that will give further tools to local governments to reasonably regulate the industry.”
First elected to the Costa Mesa City Council in 2016, Stephens described how sober living houses, incentivized by state and federal compensation policies, accounted for about 300 separate businesses inside city limits.
Officials worked tirelessly to draft an ordinance that would balance the needs of people recovering from substance abuse, while addressing impacts to neighborhoods, he said.
“We were all on the same page, knowing this regulatory framework we put together was serving the people who needed to get well and serving the neighbors,” Stephens added. “The only people it adversely affected were those who wanted to profit off of people suffering addiction in Costa Mesa.”
City officials confirmed Wednesday Ohio House has continued to operate throughout the legal battle but indicated once a federal court ruling was final, the sober living home would be forced to close.