The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)

Citation: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Parent Document: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2024-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287865/the-ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-c... ↗

Full Text

1,290 chars

Beginning in 2014, the City expanded its zoning code
and enacted new rules governing group-living facilities,
including, relevant here, group housing for disabled persons,
CMMC §§ 13-310 to -312; Socal Recovery, LLC v. City of
Costa Mesa, 56 F.4th 802, 806 (9th Cir. 2023), which
includes “persons recovering from drug and/or alcohol
addiction,” Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport
Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2013). In the City’s
view, federal and state legislation had incentivized a
“significant increase in the number of single- and multi-
family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery
facilities for large numbers of individuals,” which led to
“overconcentration” of sober living homes in residential
communities. 1 The City concluded this produced
“deleterious” effects “to the residential character” of its
communities and “generated secondary impacts including,
but not limited to neighborhood parking shortfalls,
overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke,
and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close
proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober
living homes.” It was also concerned that these changes
increased “institutionalization,” harming the very people
sober living homes were supposed to serve:

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text