Costa Mesa’s win against sober living home affirmed by U.S. Court of Appeals

Costa Mesa’s legal winning streak over sober living homes continued this week, when the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor.

A unanimous, three-judge panel agreed with a lower court’s ruling that the city can regulate where and how drug and alcohol rehab centers operate.

The June 9 ruling is the latest to shoot down a legal theory that the rehab industry has relied on for years — that sober homes are exempt from zoning rules because recovering addicts are protected by the Americans With Disabilities and Fair Housing acts.

SoCal Recovery and Roger Lawson sued Costa Mesa in 2018 to stop it from enforcing new zoning laws, arguing, among other things, that they violate federal protections for addicts and alcoholics, who are considered disabled.

“The district court acknowledged the potential hardships confronting SoCal and Lawson … and it recognized their individual interests in the continued operation of the sober living facility, as well as ‘the public interest in vindicating fair housing rights and promoting the recovery of alcoholics and addicts,’ ” the Ninth Circuit said.

“But the district court also found significant countervailing interests … including the interests of the city in enforcing its ordinances and of the residents of sober living homes and the public at large in preserving the benefits the city ordinances conferred,” the decision continued.

“The court further noted the city’s concerns that non-enforcement would ‘contribute to the over-concentration of these types of facilities in this residential neighborhood,’ clash with ‘the scale and intensity of surrounding properties,’ and ‘fundamentally alter’ the neighborhood’s character.”

Ultimately, the district court reasonably concluded there were public interests on both sides, but that the balance of hardships did not tip sharply in favor of the sober living home operators, the Ninth Circuit said.

Costa Mesa’s laws were legal trailblazers, responding to a proliferation of unlicensed, unregulated sober living homes in residential neighborhoods and an avalanche of complaints from people who live near those homes.

The city’s rules have prompted more than a half-dozen lawsuits, which have cost the city more than $7 million to defend. Recently, the city prevailed in lower courts and those decisions have been appealed. The Ninth Circuit ruling is the first of those appeals to be decided and upholds the city’s legal argument.

“This is important because it’s the first review of the district court’s work,” said MC Sungaila with Haynes and Boone LLC, the city’s appellate attorney.

“We know there will be a series of these appeals, and it sets the tone for that.”

The court could have simply made a decision on the very specific circumstances of this case — SoCal Recovery wanted out of the city’s required distance separation between sober homes and didn’t follow the city’s procedures. Instead, Sungaila noted, the court delved deeper.

“It went on to say, ‘We think the city has some good reasons for having these ordinances, and your public interest doesn’t so clearly outweigh that, that it would justify an injunction,’ ” Sungaila said. “It’s important that they went that far.”

It’s unclear if SoCal Recovery will ask for a re-hearing before the full Ninth Circuit panel of judges. Attorneys for SoCal Recovery did not return requests for comment by deadline.

City officials were pleased.

“It is a good day for Costa Mesa when one of the highest courts in the land agrees that our efforts to create reasonable public safety rules to maintain quality of life for our neighborhoods is lawful and correct,” said Mayor Katrina Foley in a prepared statement. “Another victory for all Costa Mesa residents, including those exploited by unscrupulous sober living home operators.”

Costa Mesa’s zoning rules prohibit sex offenders, violent felons and drug dealers from operating sober homes. They also require 24/7 supervision of clients, mandate a minimum 650-foot separation between facilities, and require a special city permit, which operators say has been virtually impossible to get. The rules apply not just to sober living homes, but to other sorts of group homes as well.

Other cities with similar issues have been slow to adopt similar laws, fearing lawsuits. The County of Orange was the first to follow suit with its own version last fall.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirmed the thinking of U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna, who has heard the federal cases and consistently sided with the city.

Selna has reasoned that a history of addiction doesn’t automatically mean people are disabled and entitled to protection under federal law. Instead, disability must be proven individually, on a case by case basis, he has said.