1. Request for Reasonable Accommodation — Costa Mesa City Council, October 6, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

BRANCART & BRANCART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P. O. BOX 686 Telephone (650) 879-0141 Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile (650) 879-1103 Liza Cristol-Deman www.brancart.com
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
June 2, 2025
Via Email
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Supplemental Information in Support of Renewed Request for Reasonable Accommodation Based on Material Change in
Circumstances, CMMC § 13-200.62
By: The Ohio House, 115 E. Wilson Street, Units A-E, and Residents
Dear Ms. Tai:

I write to supplement the request for reasonable accommodation submitted to the City on May 2, 2025 by The Ohio House and residents George Castaneda, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, Diego Blake, and Robert Palmer. We will include this letter when we submit the reasonable accommodation and documents through TESSA as requested by Daniel Inloes of your office.

This supplement provides the City with further information supporting the need for and reasonableness of the request for accommodation, demonstrating the current lack of structured sober living in Cosa Mesa. It further refutes the erroneous belief that licensed residential treatment facilities serve the same ATTACHMENT 1
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
June 2, 2025

Page 2 ends

function and provide the same housing opportunities as the unlicensed sober housing provided by The Ohio House.

1. Licensed substance abuse treatment and unlicensed structured sober living differ in their offerings and purpose.

As recognized by the California Department of Healthcare Services regulations, the Government Code, and the City’s zoning regulations and General Plan, there are critical differences between licensed residential treatment programs and unlicensed structured sober living homes. Both are essential components of the substance use recovery continuum, each providing a vital but very distinct purpose.

A. Licensed Residential Treatment Facilities
• Regulated & Licensed: Overseen by state agencies (e.g., DHCS in California); must meet strict standards of care and operate under a license.
• Medical & Clinical Services: Provide 24/7 care including detox, therapy (individual/group), medical monitoring, and psychiatric support.
• Treatment Focus: Clinical stabilization and rehabilitation during the acute and subacute phases of recovery.
• Staffing: Includes licensed professionals such as therapists, nurses, counselors, and physicians.
• Duration: Typically 30-90 days.
• Billing: May accept insurance or public funding due to medical and clinical service provisions.

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
June 2, 2025

Page 3 ends

B. Unlicensed Structured Sober Living (Aftercare)
• Peer-Based Housing: Not licensed because they do not provide treatment; residents live in a drug- and alcohol-free environment with structured peer accountability.
• Supportive, Not Clinical: No clinical services are provided although onsite-residents may attend outpatient treatment offsite. • Recovery Focus: Long-term support for individuals in early recovery as they reintegrate into society with jobs, education, or volunteering. • Oversight & Accountability: While not state-licensed, many operate under industry standards (e.g., National Alliance for Recovery Residences – NARR).
• Duration: Often 3 months to a year or more.
• Essential Role: A critical step-down level of care that reduces relapse risk and promotes community reintegration.

As evident when comparing their attributes, both of these models serve distinct yet complementary purposes in saving lives and restoring community health.

2. Licensed residential treatment facilities and structured sober living are part of the continuum of care in recovery.

Recovery does not end with treatment. After treatment the real growth takes place when an individual must re-enter the world with its everyday stressors and temptations. The first 90 days post-treatment are the most vulnerable for relapse.

That is what makes structured sober living like that provided by The Ohio House such an important element in the recovery process. It offers peer support and regular check-ins to foster responsibility and belonging. It provides a community in which residents can support and help each other learn coping strategies and Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
June 2, 2025

Page 4 ends

even more basic living skills like holding down a job, handling finances, and reconnecting with family. Alumni of The Ohio House keep in contact and continue to provide ongoing support to each other in navigating the challenges of maintaining sobriety.

3. The differing substance and purpose between licensed residential treatment and structured sober living is reflected on the ground in Costa Mesa.

The difference in substance and purpose between The Ohio House and the DHCS-licensed residential treatment facilities in Costa Mesa makes licensed facilities an inappropriate substitute for The Ohio House’s residents should The Ohio House be forced to close.

Since submitting the reasonable accommodation request, The Ohio House staff has attempted to confirm that the residential treatment facilities licensed by DHCS to operate in Costa Mesa (listed in Exhibit 16 of the May 5 Request for Reasonable Accommodation) actually provide substance abuse treatment – as opposed to pure sober living like that offered by The Ohio House. That investigation shows that the DHCS-licensed facilities are providing substance abuse treatment and, in some cases, detox and mental health treatment. The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) maintains a government website, www/findtreatment.gov, identifying licensed substance abuse facilities and reporting on their available treatment services and modalities. Almost all of the DHCS-licensed facilities in Costa Mesa self-reported information to SAMHSA that SAMHSA in turn posted on its website as a service for persons seeking substance abuse treatment. A print-out of the SAMHSA webpages on each of those facilities is attached as Exhibit 1 and, as expected, reflect that each facility is providing substance abuse treatment. These facilities are completely unlike the structured sober living offered by The Ohio House. And, the 38 beds in the DHCS-licensed and City-approved Recovery Center operated by Nancy Clark are reserved for the “criminal justice population” who come to the Center from jail or prison, and not available to the general public seeking sober living. (Deposition of Nancy Clark taken November 15, 2021, at 211:20-24.) Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 30, 2025

Page 5 ends

Moreover, as indicated in the May 2 reasonable accommodation request, The Ohio House has continued to attempt to contact the previously non-responsive City-approved sober living homes on Raleigh, Republic, San Pablo, and Traverse. (See May 5, 2025 Request for Reasonable Accommodation at p. 19.) Keystone Sober Living on Raleigh advised The Ohio House that they rarely had any vacancies. All of The Ohio House’s emails to Sheldon Riley on Republic have bounced back as undeliverable and messages left on voicemail have not been returned. The Ohio House has determined that the homes on San Pablo and Traverse operated by South Coast Behavioral Health are part of its broader programming and would not be available as alternative housing for The Ohio House residents who are not connected to South Coast.

These facts establish that granting a reasonable accommodation is both reasonable and necessary to enable The Ohio House to continue to provide some of the few opportunities for sober living in Costa Mesa and for residents George Castaneda, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, Diego Blake, and Robert Palmer to continue to live in the housing of their choice in the community * * *
Thank you.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
[email protected]
cc: Kimberly H. Barlow, City Attorney
Seymour Everett
Applicants
EXHIBIT 1
0 FindTreatment.gov
Millions of Americans have mental and substance use disorders. Find treatment here.

Welcome to FindTreatment.gov, the confidential and anonymous resource for persons seeking treatment for mental and substance use disorders in the United States and its territories.

Find a Treatment Facility o
Enter your address, city, zip code, or facility name
....

Help Resources
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline ~
Free and confidential support for people in distress, 24/7.

National Helgline
Treatment referral and information, 24/7.
1-IOCM62-IIELP
Disaster Distress Helpline
Immediate crisis counseling related to disasters, 24/7. 1-l00-985-5990
What To Expect
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Nancy Clark and Associates Inc The Recovery
Center
.!ill.p://nancyclark.net rl.'
1110 Victoria Street, Suite A-104
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 949-631-0550
0 2.48 Miles
0 Trader Joe's
~
Fairview Park
Estanci,a High School Q
•
Canyon Park
VlclOl'IISt
Cost;

MONTICE
COMM U~
0 Mercado Gonzalez Northgate Market
Vk:1orlaSt
i I > ! s: ,/· I Talbert tlf Regional Park
I f •~ / Costa Mesa OMV O G) ln-N Out Burger ~.;>o,1'>4> 81nnh19Ave
Go gle
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Cash or self-payment
-- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Residential/24-hour residential
Long-term residential
External Opioid Medications Source
Other contracted prescribing entity
No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
COSTA MESA 55 f" 4 WESTSIDE / J}
9 19'

1.!>MapdataCl2025Google Reportamapeiror
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Motivational interviewing
Matrix Model
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Trauma-related counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
12-step facilitation
License/Certification/ Accreditation
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Yellowstone Recovery Boston House
bllR.JlY.ellowstonerecovery.com Cl.'
3132 Boston Way
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
J 949-678-32 14
0 1.54 Miles
l
•
c~~~:,:g~~b G
Google
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted

HALECREST
v Federal, or any government funding for substance use treatment programs V Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
-- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Residential/24-hour residential
Long-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Buprenorphine used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Medication Therapy
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Medication for mental disorders
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
John Wayne Arpt
0 ~
e pdata Cl2025 Google R!rt a map error
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Hotel California by the Sea
b11p: //www.HotelCaliforniaByTheSea.com Cl.'
1509 Orange Avenue A
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 800-762-6717
0 2.56 Miles
Google
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Federal military insurance (e.g., TRICARE)
V Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
-
---·~ ·····~ g / ~'•0,, w 18th St Uons Park
Trader Joe's O / Sidecar Doughnuts
w 17th St & Coffee
HI-Time Wine Cellars O CD W 16th St
Artls~~8~o~~!~~! ~ Environmental
Nature Center
o ~
I
Cas1aways Park
- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Mental health treatment
,!;
J
El
Corona , High
Newport Aqualic Center
~o
.I ,
• ~yatt R_e9enc,1M~P data Cl2025 Google Report a map error Treatment for co-occurring substance use plus either serious mental health illness in adults/serious emotional disturbance in children Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Residential/24-hour residential
Facility Type
Residential treatment center (RTC) for adults
Medication Therapy
Chlorpromazine
Fluphenazine
Haloperidol
Pimozide
Prochlorperazine
Thiothixene
Thioridazine
Aripiprazole
Asenapine
Brexpiprazole
Cariprazine
Clozapine
lloperidone
Lurasidone
Olanzapine
Olanzapine/Fluoxetine combination
Quetiapine
Risperidone
Nicotine replacement
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Antipsychotics used in treatment of SM I
Treatment Approaches
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Couples/family therapy
Dialectical behavior therapy
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy
Group therapy
Integrated Mental and Substance Use Disorder treatment
Individual psychotherapy
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Young adults
Seniors or older adults
Veterans
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Persons with eating disorders
Persons with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSO)
Persons 18 and older with serious mental illness (SMI)
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Screening for tobacco use
Testing
TB screening
Education and Counseling Services
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Facility Smoking Policy
Smoking permitted in designated area
Age Groups Accepted
Young Adults
Adults
Seniors
Facility Vaping Policy
Vaping permitted in designated area
Additional Services
Chronic disease/illness management
Diet and exercise counseling
Family psychoeducation
Intensive case management
Illness management and recovery
Psychosocial rehabilitation services
Case management service
Integrated primary care services
Suicide prevention services
Education services
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Hotel California by the Sea
b11p: //www.HotelCaliforniaByTheSea.com Cl.'
317 Rochester Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 800-762-6717
0 2.10 Miles
'" /Park
L:anyon 1-'ark ..,. ~ , ~ ..,') ,J'
Co! 1: 5~::~EDMV ~ Q ln·N·Out Burger ~~-S>
COSTA MESA / ~
g 'si0.s-.,
Wl 8thSI Lions Park
Trader Joe's Q l Sidecar Doughnuts
W17thSt &Co,
Ar11s~~8Ro~~~~~: 0
Ne;p;;:fBay
Slate Marine
El
Corona , High
Newport Aquatic Center
<t o
Google
wz Hl·Tlme Wine ella,s 0
, ✓-"' Environmental ~- Nature Center
0 <t .I
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Federal military insurance (e.g., TRICARE)
V Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
-
C est S1 Bon BakeN } Map data Cl2025 Google Report a map error - Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Treatment for co-occurring substance use plus either serious mental health illness in adults/serious emotional disturbance in children Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Residential/24-hour residential
Long-term residential
Short-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Buprenorphine used in Treatment
Naltrexone used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere This facility administers/prescribes medication for alcohol use disorder External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Buprenorphine maintenance
Prescribes buprenorphine
Prescribes naltrexone
Relapse prevention with naltrexone
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Maintenance service with medically supervised withdrawal after stabilization Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Oisulfiram
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Naltrexone (oral)
Naltrexone (extended-release, injectable)
Medications for HIV treatment
Medications for Hepatitis C treatment
Lofexidine
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Medications for pre-exposure to prophylaxis
Nicotine replacement
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Contingency management/motivational incentives
Motivational interviewing
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Trauma-related counseling
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public}
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State Substance use treatment agency
state department of heahh
The Joint Commission
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Young adults
Adult women
Adult men
Seniors or older adults
Veterans
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Clients with co-occurring pain and substance use disorders Clients who have experienced sexual abuse
Clients who have experienced intimate partner violence, domestic violence Clients who have experienced trauma
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
TB screening
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Recovery coach
Mentoring/peer support
Employment counseling or training
Other Services
Treatment for gambling disorder
Treatment for other addiction disorder
Education and Counseling Services
HIV or AIDS education, counseling, or support
Hepatitis education, counseling, or support
Health education services other than HIV/AIDS or hepatitis Substance use disorder education
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Family counseling
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
9 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with this listing, please email [email protected]_Q,' or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

New Directions for Women Inc
hll1;r//www.newdirectionsforwomen grg_B"
2607 Willa Lane
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J ----949-313-11 92
0 1.06Miles
Arh09tonDr
OC Fair & Event Center Q
Costa Mesa
VlcloilaSt Vlc10!11St
IWBaySI
Go gle ,n ..... f
.C. This facility offers transportation assistance.
ltllllt Ask them about it when you call.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
V I HS/Tribal/Urban (ITU) funds
v Federal military insurance (e.g, TRICARE)
V Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
,,,~,.
·~ SA N TA ANA

HE IGHTS
t
Upper
Newport
BayNaw,e
Preserve
Upper
Newporr_Bay
~ Contact this facility to make sure they take your specifi c insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Detoxification
Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Residential/24-hour residential
Residential detoxifi cation
Long-term residential
Short-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Buprenorphine used in Treatment
Naltrexone used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
In-network prescribing entity
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere This facility administers/prescribes medication for alcohol use disorder External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment In-network prescribing entity
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Buprenorphine detoxifi cation
Buprenorphine maintenance
Prescribes buprenorphine
Prescribes naltrexone
Relapse prevention with naltrexone
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxifi cation
Maintenance service with medically supervised withdrawal after stabilization Map data C 2025Goog~ Report1m119«ro1
Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Oisulfiram
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Buprenorphine (extended-release, injectable)
Naltrexone (oral)
Naltrexone (extended-release, injectable)
Medications for Hepatitis C treatment
Lofexidine
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Contingency managemenVmotivational incentives
Motivational interviewing
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
Trauma-related counseling
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private non-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State Substance use treatment agency
Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Young adults
Adult women
Pregnant/postpartum women
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Clients with co-occurring pain and substance use disorders Clients who have experienced trauma
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Mentoring/peer support
Detoxification {medical withdrawal) Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
Cocaine Detoxification
Methamphetamines detoxification
Opioids detoxification
Medication routinely used during detoxification
Education and Counseling Services
Substance use disorder education
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Family counseling
Marital/couples counseling
Facility Smoking Policy
Smoking permitted in designated area
Age Groups Accepted
Young Adults
Adults
Seniors
Sex Accepted
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

South Coast Counseling Inc
bllp://www.southcoastcounselingoc.org_(t
693 Plumer Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 844-330-0096
0 1.97 Miles
0 Trader ~oe's
;;;
J I Talbert Canyon Park
~ Regional Park
Banning Ave
Victoria St VlclorlaSt
I , I [ e .. ~ :,,"-b,J)-
~ ,&~ <:t"'# .:!' ..... ~ , '> •

SANTA AN A HEIGHTS
Costa Mesa D, ~ Q ln·N·Out Burger ..,~ .f WESTSIDE /' J)- {t .,/• COS TA MESA 55 e cf A,_§~
g ';,.1,S),
w 18th St lions Park
w 17th st & Coffee
Trader Joe's O l Sidecar Doughnuts
,u, .. ,,,,.,, , Bay Nature Preserve
Upper
Newport Bay Stale Marine
El
Corona, High
Google
HI-Time7Wlne · ellars C) CD W16thSt i Map data Cl2025 Google Report a map error A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Federal military insurance (e.g .. TRICARE)
v Other State funds
v Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
v State-financed health insurance plan other than Medicaid v State mental health agency (or equivalent) funds
-- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Mental health treatment
Treatment for co-occurring substance use plus either serious mental health illness in adults/serious emotional disturbance in children Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Outpatient
Partial hospitalization/day treatment
Residential/24-hour residential
Facility Type
Residential treatment center (RTC) for adults
Medication Therapy
Chlorpromazine
Haloperidol
Prochlorperazine
Thioridazine
Aripiprazole
Cariprazine
Clozapine
Lurasidone
Olanzapine
Quetiapine
Risperidone
Nicotine replacement
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Antipsychotics used in treatment of SM I
Treatment Approaches
Activity therapy
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Couples/family therapy
Dialectical behavior therapy
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy
Group therapy
Integrated Mental and Substance Use Disorder treatment
Individual psychotherapy
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private non~profit organization
Payment Assistance Available
Sliding fee scale (fee is based on income and other factors) Special Programs/Groups Offered
Veterans
Active duty military
Members of military families
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Assessment/Pre-treatment
Screening for tobacco use
Testing
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Metabolic syndrome monitoring
Testing for Hepatitis B (HBV)
Testing for Hepatitis C (HCV)
Laboratory testing
Recovery Support Services
Housing services
Mentoring/peer support
Education and Counseling Services
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Facility Smoking Policy
Smoking permitted in designated area
Age Groups Accepted
Young Adults
Adults
Seniors
Facility Vaping Policy
Vaping permitted in designated area
Additional Services
Assertive community treatment
Court.-ordered outpatient treatment
Diet and exercise counseling
Family psychoeducation
Psychosocial rehabilitation services
Supported housing
Case management service
Integrated primary care services
Suicide prevention services
Sign Up for SAMHSA Email Updates
To sign up for updates or to access your subscriber preferences, please enter your contact information.

Email Address
llgnllp
Language Assistance
9 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with this listing, please email [email protected]_Q,' or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Asana Recovery Madison
hll1;r//www asanarecovervmB"
3073 Madison Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
J ----949-438-4504
0 1.38Miles
WSunfloweJ A-.e wSUI".., •.•....•
Go gle

HALECREST
,.,, Ad11(1,.
• Orange Coast College Q
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
•
Costa Mesa High School 8 MESA DEL MAR
V Federal, or any government funding for substance use treatment programs -./ I HS/Tribal/Urban (ITU) funds
V Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
V SAMHSA funding/block grants
~ Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Detoxification
John
Wayne Arp!
0 Lyon Air Museum
G
~
I Map data C 2025Goog~ Report1m119«ro1
Treatment for co-occurring substance use plus either serious mental health illness in adults/serious emotional disturbance in children Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Hospital inpatient/24-hour hospital inpatient
Residential/24-hour residential
Hospital inpatient detoxifi cation
Hospital inpatient treatment
Residential detoxifi cation
Long-term residential
Short-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Buprenorphine used in Treatment
Naltrexone used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
In-network prescribing entity
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere This facility administers/prescribes medication for alcohol use disorder External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment In-network prescribing entity
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Prescribes buprenorphine
Prescribes naltrexone
Relapse prevention with naltrexone
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Maintenance service with medically supervised withdrawal after stabilization Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Buprenorphine sub--dermal implant
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Buprenorphine (extended-felease, injectable)
Naltrexone (oral)
Naltrexone (extended-release, injectable)
Medications for HIV treatment
Medications for Hepatitis C treatment
Lofexidine
Clonidlne
Medication for mental disorders
Nicotine replacement
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Contingency managemenVmotlvatlonal Incentives
Motivational interviewing
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Trauma-felated counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State Substance use treatment agency
State department of health
Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) The Joint Commission
Payment Assistance Available
Payment assistance (check with facility for details)
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Young adults
Adult women
PregnanVpostpartum women
Adult men
Veterans
Active duty military
Members of military families
Criminal justice (other than OUI/DWl)/Forensic clients
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Clients with co-occurring pain and substance use disorders Clients with HIV or AIDS
Clients who have experienced sexual abuse
Clients who have experienced intimate partner violence, domestic violence Clients who have experienced trauma
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Outreach to persons in the community
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Testing for Hepatitis B (HBV)
Testing for Hepatitis C (HCV)
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Recovery coach
Mentoring/peer support
Employment counseling or training
Detoxification (medical withdrawal) Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? I 8 If you would like to report an issue with this listing, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Yellowstone Womens First Step House The
Yellowstone Bridge
bn~:l/www.yellowstonerecovery.com ft
2028 Fullerton Avenue, Apartments A,B and C
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 888-418-4188
0 0.00 Miles
Ice's Victoria St
i I
I i' I
1111' .. ,c,-ouu W"LOOCL
Northgate Market
v1c10rlaSt
,rt
/Park
Canyon Park ., '-!I i!. .r, ci' Costa Mesa OMV ~ ~ ln•N·Out Burger Go gle
WESTS IDE / COSTA MESA ss e
0 ',P,,1-s,
W 18th St Lions Park
Trader Joe's O / Sidecar Doughnuts
w 17th s1 & Coffee
Hl·Time Wlne..,.Cellars C, CD
A Thi s facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Federal, or any government funding for substance use treatment programs v Pri vate health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
--=- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specifi c insurance or coverage.

HEIGHTS
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere Upper
Newport
Bay Nature Preserve
Upper
Newport Bay
State Marine
El
Corona,
High Map data ©2025 Google Report a map error
External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Buprenorphine detoxification
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Medication Therapy
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Contingency management/motivational incentives
Motivational interviewing
Matrix Model
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e_g., Private, Public)
Private non-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State department of health
Payment Assistance Available
Sliding fee scale (fee is based on income and other factors) Special Programs/Groups Offered
Criminal justice (other than DUI/DWl)/Forensic clients
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
Transitional Services
Discharge Planning
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Assistance with obtaining social services
Mentoring/peer support
Employment counseling or training
Detoxification (medical withdrawal) Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
Cocaine Detoxification
Methamphetamines detoxification
Opioids detoxification
Medication routinely used during detoxification
Education and Counseling Services
Substance use disorder education
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Facility Smoking Policy
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Yellowstone Recovery Womens First Step House Inc
b11p://www.yellowstonerecovery.com Cl.'
154 East Bay Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 949-678-32 14
0 1.25 Miles
!oe's
Canyon Park
VlctorlaSt
0 Mercado Gonzalez
Northgate Market
Viclorla St
l ~
f ! fw eaySt ~.,~ > il i .. "o,J}
,n
/Park ' ""' I ',.,_ "> / ./' Costa Mesa OMV V 4:D ln·N Out Burger .,o,1 ,f WESTSIDE / ") ,f> COSTA MESA ss e ~ 0 ,.,.") Google
w 18th St Llons Park
Trader Joe's O { Sidecar Doughnuts
w 17th s1 & Coffee
""--. .,, ____ ,, ___ "' CD
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Federal, or any government funding for substance use treatment programs ../ Private health insurance
../ Cash or self-payment
-- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

SA NTA ANA

HEIGHTS
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Buprenorphine detoxification
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Medication Therapy
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Upper
Newport
Bay Nature
Preserve
Upper
Newport Bay State Marine
El
Corona , High Map data Cl2025 Google Report a map error Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Contingency management/motivational incentives
Motivational interviewing
Matrix Model
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private non-profit organization
License/Certification/Accreditation
State department of health
Payment Assistance Available
Sliding fee scale (fee is based on income and other factors) Special Programs/Groups Offered
Criminal justice (other than DUI/DWl)/Forensic clients
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
Transitional Services
Discharge Planning
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Assistance with obtaining social services
Mentoring/peer support
Employment counseling or training
Detoxification (medical withdrawal) Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
Cocaine Detoxification
Methamphetamines detoxification
Opioids detoxification
Medication routinely used during detoxification
Education and Counseling Services
Substance use disorder education
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Facility Smoking Policy
Smoking pennitted in designated area
Age Groups Accepted
Young Adults
Adults
Seniors
Sex Accepted
Female
Facility Vaping Policy
Vaping permitted in designated area
Additional Services
Case management service
Social skills development
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

South Coast Behavioral Health Bridge House
blli;is://www.scbh .com Cl.'
559 Pierpont Drive.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626
J 424-484-9033
0 2.05 Miles
Google
,werAve
.1esa High School
MES.6. DEL MAR
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
-
John Wayne Arpt
0 Lyon Air Museum
- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Mental health treatment
/

IRVINE BUSINESS

COMPLEX
H Mar
Treatment for co-occurring substance use plus either serious mental health illness in adults/serious emotional disturbance in children Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Residential/24-hour residential
Facility Type
Residential treatment center (RTC) for adults
Medication Therapy
Nicotine replacement
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Activity therapy
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Couples/family therapy
Dialectical behavior therapy
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy
Group therapy
Integrated Mental and Substance Use Disorder treatment
Individual psychotherapy
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Seniors or older adults
Veterans
Members of military families
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders 繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Opus Health LLC
bllR.§.iLQgustreatment.com Cl.'
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
J 949-625-4019
0 1.08 Miles
1islng Can'e•s
f
1lcken F.ingers MESA VERDE Adorns Ave
l

HALECREST
•
Costa Mesa High School
g MESA DEL MAR
TeWfnkle Park
AflingtonDI
Google '! Costa Mesa Country Club 9 Or. FRlr A. FvPnl (;pnfPr a A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
-- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Detoxification
Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Residential/24-hour residential
Residential detoxification
Long-term residential
Short-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Buprenorphine used in Treatment
Naltrexone used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere This facility administers/prescribes medication for alcohol use disorder External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Buprenorphine detoxification
Buprenorphine maintenance
Prescribes buprenorphine
Prescribes naltrexone
Relapse prevention with naltrexone
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Maintenance service with medically supervised withdrawal after stabilization Map data Cl2025 Google Report a map error
Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Oisulfiram
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Buprenorphine (extended-release, injectable)
Naltrexone (oral)
Naltrexone (extended-release, injectable)
Medications for HIV treatment
Medications for Hepatitis C treatment
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Nicotine replacement
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Motivational interviewing
Matrix Model
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Trauma-related counseling
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public}
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State Substance use treatment agency
The Joint Commission
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Adult women
Adult men
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Interim services for clients
Outreach to persons in the community
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Professional interventionist/educational consultant
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Orug and alcohol oral fluid testing
Orug or alcohol urine screening
TB screening
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Recovery coach
Mentoring/peer support
Employment counseling or training
Other Services
Treatment for gambling disorder
Treatment for other addiction disorder
Detoxification (medical withdrawal} Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
Cocaine Detoxification
Methamphetamines detoxification
Opioids detoxification
Medication routinely used during detoxification
Education and Counseling Services
HIV or AIDS education, counseling, or support
Hepatitis education, counseling, or support
Health education services other than HIV/AIDS or hepatitis Substance use disorder education
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Safe Harbor Treatment Center
bllp://www.safeharbortreatmentcenter.com Cl.'
546 Bernard Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 888-541-3654
0 1.57 Miles
Google
loe's
'" /Park
Canyon Park
Vic toria St Vict01laSI
i I .. "' {weaySt Jt- .;>~
• I • i ~ ""<> i I ~._, i' l' Costa Mesa OMV O G) ln-N-Out Burger e..,~ <S} ,t WESTSIDE / J) ,> COSTA MESA S5 (' {,l' 0 ,,,,'> w 18th St Lions Park
Trader Joe's Q / Sidecar Doughnuts
w 17th s, & Coffee
HI-Time Wlne .. ceuars e CD
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
-- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

SANTA ANA HEI GHTS
Upper
Newport
Bay Nature Preserve
Upper
Newport Bay
Srare Marine
El
Corona,
Hlah Map data C2025 Google Report a map error
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Buprenorphine (extended-release, injectable)
Naltrexone (oral)
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Motivational interviewing
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
Trauma-related counseling
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State department of health
The Joint Commission
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Adult women
Adult men
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Outreach to persons in the community
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug and alcohol oral fluid testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Testing for Hepa@s B {HBV)
Testing for Hepa@s C (HCV)
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Mentoring/peer support
Other Services
Treatment for gambling disorder
Treatment for other addiction disorder
Detoxification (medical withdrawal) Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
Cocaine Detoxification
Methamphetamines detoxification
Opioids detoxification
Medication routinely used during detoxification
Education and Counseling Services
HIV or AIDS education, counseling, or support
Health education services other than HIV/AIDS or hepatitis Substance use disorder education
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Family counseling
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Safe Harbor Treatment Center
bllp://www.safeharbortreatmentcenter.com Cl.'
548 Bernard Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 888-541-3654
0 1.56 Miles
Ice's
Canyon Park
Victoria St
A~ M~ll,;dUU UUIILi:ll~L.

W' Northgate Market
Vict01la$1
i
--o EAST SIDE
COSTA MESA .?,?,-0'
f WBaySt .?~ J)
t • i il' ;;,.-1>
,n
/Park El) I ~ .,,~ l' Co!~s~:~iEOMV 4J In N Out Burger ~~ ,i',/ .f COSTA MESA / ', "J' ~ 0 ~~ ~ "' .,, w 18th St Lions Park Google
Trader Joe's Q l Sidecar Doughnuts
w 17th s, & Coffee
Hi•Time Wine,- eUars €, G)
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Private health insurance
../ Cash or self-payment
-- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Detoxification
Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Hospital inpatient/24-hour hospital inpatient
Residential/24-hour residential
Hospital inpatient detoxification
Hospital inpatient treatment
Residential detoxification
Long-term residential
Short-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Buprenorphine used in Treatment
Naltrexone used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere This facility administers/prescribes medication for alcohol use disorder External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Buprenorphine detoxification
Prescribes buprenorphine
Prescribes naltrexone
Relapse prevention with naltrexone
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Upper
Newporr
Bay Nature Preserve
Upper Newport Bay
State Marine
"
Corona, Hinh Map data C2025 Google Report a map error
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Buprenorphine (extended-release, injectable)
Naltrexone (oral)
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Motivational interviewing
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Trauma-related counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State department of health
The Joint Commission
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Adult women
Adult men
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Outreach to persons in the community
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug and alcohol oral fluid testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Testing for Hepa@s B {HBV)
Testing for Hepa@s C (HCV)
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Mentoring/peer support
Other Services
Treatment for gambling disorder
Treatment for other addiction disorder
Detoxification (medical withdrawal) Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
Cocaine Detoxification
Methamphetamines detoxification
Opioids detoxification
Medication routinely used during detoxification
Education and Counseling Services
HIV or AIDS education, counseling, or support
Health education services other than HIV/AIDS or hepatitis Substance use disorder education
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Family counseling
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Safe Harbor Treatment Center
bllp://www.safeharbortreatmentcenter.com Cl.'
550-A Bernard Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 888-541-3654
0 1.55 Miles
Ice's Viclorla St
Q Mercado Gonzalez
_, Northgate Market
Vict01laSI
,,.,., '*1~ .,. SANTA ANA

HE IGHTS
j EAST SIDE ! COSTA MESA ,.)
• i weayst .§-..,.,,.,___ ~o-.s;.

Google
"' /Park
Canyon Park
f [ _,• v'>
G) ! ~ ,,<i' l' Co! ~s~::~EOMV G In N Out Burger .,~ ,i'.f ,/' COSTA MESA / '> .,- $ 0 ~~,, ~ w,eu,St Lions Park
Trader Joe's Q ( Sidecar Doughnuts
w 17th s, & Coffee
HI-Tim., Wln,:,,f'oU:uc:a I!\ G)
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
-- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Detoxification
Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Hospital inpatient/24-hour hospital inpatient
Residential/24-hour residential
Hospital inpatient detoxification
Hospital inpatient treatment
Residential detoxification
Long-term residential
Short-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Buprenorphine used in Treatment
Naltrexone used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere This facility administers/prescribes medication for alcohol use disorder External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Buprenorphine detoxification
Prescribes buprenorphine
Prescribes naltrexone
Relapse prevention with naltrexone
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Upper
Newport
Bay Nature Preserve
Upper Newport Bay
State Marine
El
Cor~~8..,•
Map data C2025 Google Report a map error
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Buprenorphine (extended-release, injectable)
Naltrexone (oral)
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Motivational interviewing
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
Trauma-related counseling
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State department of health
The Joint Commission
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Adult women
Adult men
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Outreach to persons in the community
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug and alcohol oral fluid testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Testing for Hepa@s B {HBV)
Testing for Hepa@s C (HCV)
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Mentoring/peer support
Other Services
Treatment for gambling disorder
Treatment for other addiction disorder
Detoxification (medical withdrawal) Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
Cocaine Detoxification
Methamphetamines detoxification
Opioids detoxification
Medication routinely used during detoxification
Education and Counseling Services
HIV or AIDS education, counseling, or support
Health education services other than HIV/AIDS or hepatitis Substance use disorder education
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Family counseling
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Safe Harbor Treatment Center for Women LLC
bllp://www.safeharbortreatmentcenter.com Cl.'
550 Bernard Street, Suite B
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J 888-541-3654
0 1.46 Miles
Google
loe·s
~rr
/Park
Canyon Park
A This facility does not offer transportation assistance.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
-
Victoria St
- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

SANTA ANA

HEIGHTS
Upper
Newport
Bay Nature Preserve
Upper
Newport Bay Stare Marine
El
Map data Cl2025 Google Report a map error
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Buprenorphine (extended-release, injectable)
Naltrexone (oral)
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Motivational interviewing
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Trauma-related counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State department of health
The Joint Commission
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Adult women
Adult men
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Outreach to persons in the community
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug and alcohol oral fluid testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Testing for Hepa@s B {HBV)
Testing for Hepa@s C (HCV)
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Mentoring/peer support
Other Services
Treatment for gambling disorder
Treatment for other addiction disorder
Detoxification (medical withdrawal) Services
Alcohol Detoxification
Benzodiazepines Detoxification
Cocaine Detoxification
Methamphetamines detoxification
Opioids detoxification
Medication routinely used during detoxification
Education and Counseling Services
HIV or AIDS education, counseling, or support
Health education services other than HIV/AIDS or hepatitis Substance use disorder education
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Family counseling
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
0 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s li sting, please email [email protected] or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Divine Bliss The Ho Tai Way
b11p: //www.thehotaiway.com [).'
1219 Parnell Place
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
J 714-581-3974
0 1.35 Miles
South Coast Plaza t)
i
f HALECREST ~
c~~~fr:c1~~ 0
Google
1lslngCane's
1lcken Fingers
.. MESA VERDE Ad11ms Ave
.~ A.dal1'°'
Orange Coast College 8
.C.. This facility offe~s transportation assistance.
~ Ask them about 1t when you call.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Federal military insurance (e.g .. TRICARE)
V Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
v SAMHSA funding/block grants
-
Costa Mesa High School
g MESA DEL MAR
- Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
Detoxification
f -
"
Map data Cl2025 Google Report a map error
Treatment for co-occurring substance use plus either serious mental health illness in adults/serious emotional disturbance in children Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Hospital inpatient/24-hour hospital inpatient
Residential/24-hour residential
Hospital inpatient detoxification
Hospital inpatient treatment
Residential detoxification
Long-term residential
Short-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Buprenorphine used in Treatment
Naltrexone used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
In-network prescribing entity
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere This facility administers/prescribes medication for alcohol use disorder External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment In-network prescribing entity
Other contracted prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Nicotine replacement
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Contingency managemenVmotivational incentives
Community reinforcement plus vouchers
Motivational interviewing
Matrix Model
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Telemedicine/telehealth therapy
Trauma-related counseling
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
State Substance use treatment agency
State mental health department
State department of health
The Joint Commission
Payment Assistance Available
Payment assistance (check with facility for details)
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Young adults
Adult men
Seniors or older adults
Veterans
Active duty military
Members of military families
Criminal justice (other than DUI/DWl)/Forensic clients
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Clients with co-occurring pain and substance use disorders Clients with HIV or AIDS
Clients who have experienced sexual abuse
Clients who have experienced intimate partner violence, domestic violence Clients who have experienced trauma
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Interim services for clients
Outreach to persons in the community
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Professional interventionisVeducational consultant
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug and alcohol oral fluid testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Metabolic syndrome monitoring
Testing for Hepatitis B (HBV)
Testing for Hepatitis c (HCV)
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
Self-help groups
Housing services
Assistance with obtaining social services
Employment counseling or training
Other Services
Treatment for other addiction disorder
Education and Counseling Services
HIV or AIDS education, counseling, or support
Hepatitis education, counseling, or support
Health education services other than HIV/ AIDS or hepatitis Substance use disorder education
Smoking/vaping/tobacco cessation counseling
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Family counseling
Marital/couples counseling
Vocational training or educational support (for example, high school coursework, GED preparation, etc.) 繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا
9 FindTreatment.gov
Would you like to report an issue with this listing? 0 If you would like to report an issue with thi s listing, please email [email protected]_Q,' or call 1-833-888-1553 (Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m - 6:00 p.m. ET).

Akua Behavioral Health Inc Akua Mind and Body
hll1;r//akuamiodbody~
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
J ----949-777-2283
0 1.46Miles
Go gle
loe's
'" /Park
Canyon Park
.C. This facility offers transportation assistance.
ltllllt Ask them about it when you call.

Payment, insurance, or funding accepted
v Medicare
v Federal military insurance (e.g, TRICARE)
V Private health insurance
v Cash or self-payment
Victoria St
~ Contact this facility to make sure they take your specific insurance or coverage.

Services
Type of Care
Substance use treatment
,.,tt1,,.
, .. ,.
... SANTA ANA

HEIGHTS
Upper
Newport
Bay Nature
Preserve
Upper
Newport Bay State Marine
Ma p data C 2025Goog~ Report1m119«ro1
Treatment for co-occurring substance use plus either serious mental health illness in adults/serious emotional disturbance in children Service Setting (e.g., Outpatient, Residential, Inpatient, etc.) Residential/24-hour residential
Long-term residential
Short-term residential
Opioid Medications used in Treatment
Naltrexone used in Treatment
External Opioid Medications Source
Other contracted prescribing entity
No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment
Accepts clients using medication assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder but prescribed elsewhere This facility administers/prescribes medication for alcohol use disorder External Source of Medications Used for Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment Other contracted prescribing entity
No formal relationship with prescribing entity
Type of Opioid Treatment
Prescribes naltrexone
Relapse prevention with naltrexone
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Naltrexone (oral)
Medications for Hepatitis C treatment
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Buprenorphine detoxification
Buprenorphine maintenance
Prescribes buprenorphine
Prescribes naltrexone
Relapse prevention with naltrexone
Accepts clients using MAT but prescribed elsewhere
Lofexidine or Clonidine detoxification
Maintenance service with medically supervised withdrawal after stabilization Medication Therapy
Acamprosate (Campral®)
Disulfiram
Buprenorphine with naloxone
Buprenorphine without naloxone
Buprenorphine (extended-release, injectable)
Naltrexone (oral)
Naltrexone (extended-release, injectable)
Medications for HIV treatment
Medications for Hepatitis C treatment
Lofexidine
Clonidine
Medication for mental disorders
Nicotine replacement
Non-nicotine smoking/tobacco cessation
Treatment Approaches
Anger management
Brief intervention
Cognitive behavioral therapy
Contingency management/motivational incentives
Motivational interviewing
Matrix Model
Relapse prevention
Substance use disorder counseling
Trauma-related counseling
12-step facilitation
Facility Operation (e.g., Private, Public)
Private for-profit organization
License/Certification/ Accreditation
state department of heatth
The Joint Commission
Special Programs/Groups Offered
Young adults
Adult women
Pregnant/postpartum women
Adult men
Seniors or older adults
Veterans
Active duty military
Members of military families
Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Clients with co-occurring pain and substance use disorders Clients with HIV or AIDS
Clients who have experienced sexual abuse
Clients who have experienced intimate partner violence, domestic violence Clients who have experienced trauma
Assessment/Pre-treatment
Comprehensive mental health assessment
Comprehensive substance use assessment
Interim services for clients
Outreach to persons in the community
Complete medical history/physical exam
Screening for tobacco use
Screening for substance use
Screening for mental disorders
Professional interventionist/educational consultant
Testing
Breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing
Drug and alcohol oral fluid testing
Drug or alcohol urine screening
HIV testing
STD testing
TB screening
Metabolic syndrome monitoring
Testing for Hepa@s B (HBV)
Testing for Hepa@s C (HCV)
Transitional Services
Aftercare/continuing care
Discharge Planning
Naloxone and overdose education
Outcome follow-up after discharge
Recovery Support Services
繁體中文 한국어
بيةلعرا 日本語
سیرفا

BRANCART & BRANCART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P. O. BOX 686 Telephone (650) 879-0141 Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile (650) 879-1103 Liza Cristol-Deman www.brancart.com
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
May 6, 2025
Via Email and FedEx
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Supplemental Information in Support of Renewed Request for Reasonable Accommodation Based on Material Change in
Circumstances, CMMC § 13-200.62
By: The Ohio House, 115 E. Wilson Street, Units A-E, and Residents
Dear Ms. Tai:

I write to supplementThe Ohio House’srequestfor reasonable accommodation submitted to the City on May 2, 2025 by providing it with the signed statements of the five current residents of The Ohio House who joined in that request. Please find attached:

Exhibit A: Statement of George Castaneda
Exhibit B: Statement of Garey Miller
Exhibit C: Statement of Kayl McReynolds
Exhibit D: Statement of Diego Blake
Exhibit E: Statement of Robert Palmer
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 6, 2025

Page 2 ends

Thank you.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
[email protected]
cc: Kimberly H. Barlow, City Attorney
Seymour Everett
Applicants

EXHIBIT A
George Castenada
115 E. Wilson St., Unit C
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
626-736-5012
May 5, 2025
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
Re: Request for Reasonable Accommodation
The Ohio House, 115 E. Wilson Street
Dear Ms. Tai:

I am a current resident of The Ohio House at 115 E. Wilson Street, Unit C.

I am submitting this statement in support of my request for reasonable accommodation made jointly with The Ohio House, LLC.

I moved into The Ohio House in December 2023 and have lived there continuously since, abstaining from drugs and alcohol. My monthly rent is $1,200 for a shared room. Prior to moving to The Ohio House, I was at a detox and residential treatment facility in Westminster.

I grew up in Southern California and have lived in Orange County for several years. I have an engineering degree from Cal Poly, Pomona and previously worked in the car resale field, eventually becoming the national director of merchandising for Auto Nation. I am 44 years old.

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT E

BRANCART & BRANCART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P. O. BOX 686 Telephone (650) 879-0141 Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile (650) 879-1103 Liza Cristol-Deman www.brancart.com
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
May 2, 2025
Via Email and FedEx
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Renewed Request for Reasonable Accommodation Based on Material Change in Circumstances, CMMC § 13-200.62
By: The Ohio House, 115 E. Wilson Street, Units A-E, and Residents
Dear Ms. Tai:

The Ohio House LLC, a provider of structured sober living at 115 East Wilson Street, Units A-E, in Costa Mesa and five of its current residents – George Castaneda, Diego Blake, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, and Robert Palmer – submit this requestfor reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12927(c), 12955(l), and State Planning and Zoning Law, Govt.Code, Title 7. George Castaneda, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, Diego Blake, and Robert Palmer are all current, long-term residents of The Ohio House in recovery from substance abuse. Each plans to remain living at The Ohio House for the foreseeable future until they are ready to live independently without fear of relapse. They join this request for reasonable accommodation to enable them to continue to reside in the housing of their choice in Costa Mesa.

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 2 ends

The Ohio House and residents seek a reasonable accommodation fromthe strict application of the City’s definition of “single housekeeping unit” or, in the alternative, relaxation of the 650-foot separation between it and a City-permitted sober living home located at 165 E. Wilson Street. Granting the accommodation enables The Ohio House to continue providing – and its disabled residents to continue using and enjoying – one of the very few structured sober living opportunities for people with disabilities in the City’s residential districts. This request is based upon California state law only and justified by the material changes in circumstances since the City denied The Ohio House’s prior requests for reasonable accommodation in 2017 and 2023. See generally The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 8:19-cv-1710-JVS, 2022 WL 18284406, at *8 (C.D. Cal.

Nov. 16, 2022); Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 22-56181, 2024 WL 5668044 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2025).

This application conforms to the procedural requirements for requesting reasonable accommodations as set forth in CMMC § 13-200.62(b) and provides all the information and documentation necessary for the Director to make the findings required by § 13-200.62(f) of the Zoning Code.

I. Request for Reasonable Accommodation (CMMC § 13-200.62(b)(1) and (b)(5)).

The Ohio House and its residents seek the following reasonable accommodations:
• CMMC § 13-6: The Ohio House and individual residents seek relief from the strict application of the City’s definition of “single housekeeping unit” in CMMC § 13-6, enabling the residents of the Wilson units to qualify as single housekeeping units exempted from the CUP requirement in CMMC § 13-323(b).

In the alternative,
• CMMC § 13-323(b): The Ohio House and residents seek a 100-foot Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 3 ends

reduction in the 650-foot separation requirement necessary to obtain a conditional use permit because of the existence of a City-permitted sober living home at 165 E. Wilson Street sited 550 feet from The Ohio House. If the City grants The Ohio House’s request for reasonable accommodation reducing the 650-foot separation requirement, then it asks the City to reconsider its denial of The Ohio House’s group home CUP application, PA-17-10. To the extent necessary to enable issuance of a CUP to The Ohio House after granting the reasonable accommodation to reduce the separation requirement, The Ohio House also seeks accommodation in the following regulations and requirements:
• CMMC § 13-324(b): Waiver of the requirement that The
Ohio House have obtained both an operator’s permit and
conditional use permit within the deadlines set for in § 13- 324(b).
• Application of the Uniform Housing Code’s occupancy
limitations applicable to all other residential uses in the City, as required by State law, rather than an alternative overcrowding standard.

II. FEHA requires the City to consider this reasonable accommodation request on the merits.

Under FEHA, the “duty to provide reasonable accommodations and modificationsis an ongoing one," and "[e]ach requestmust be considered separately.” 2 C.C.R. § 12176(f)(4); Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 320, 351 (2022) (“The duty to make reasonable accommodations under FEHA is an ongoing one and is not satisfied based on a single attempt at a single point in time”)(emphasis in original). Each request must be considered on its own merits.

FEHA’s regulations could not be clearer on this point:

If after a denial of an initial request for an accommodation or modification, the individual with a disability or their representative Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 4 ends

makes a later request for the same or similar accommodation or modification, the latter request must be considered pursuant to these regulations independently of the initial request.
2 C.C.R. § 12177(g).

III. Material changes since the City denied The Ohio House’s 2017 and 2023 requests for reasonable accommodation.

For purposes of the application of the state law that governsthis application for reasonable accommodation, six material changes in circumstance have transpired since the City denied The Ohio House’s 2017 and 2023 requests for reasonable accommodation, all of which favor granting this request.

First, in December 2022, the California Department of Housing and CommunityDevelopment (HCD) issued the State’s Group Home Technical Advisory in December 2022. A copy is attached as Exhibit 1. The Technical Advisory directs local planning agencies and zoning authorities, including the City of Costa Mesa, on the requirements of California state zoning laws. The HCD Guidance directly implicatesthe application ofthe “city’s policy to provide reasonable accommodation” in accordance with FEHA “for persons with disabilitiesseeking fair accessto housing in the application of the city’s zoning laws.” CMMC § 13-200.60.

Second, the City adopted an updated Housing Plan and Program as part of its revised Housing Element, dated March 1, 2023, which HCD approved May 9, 2023.

The Housing Plan, adopted by the City and approved by HCD, mandates:
• That the City will amend its Land Use Matrix to comport with Cal.

Govt. Code §§ 65583(c)(3) and 65651(a) [supportive housing permitted by-right in multifamily and commercial districts] (Program 2J, at 4-10); • That the City will review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements (Program 2N, at 4-11);
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 5 ends

• The City will review and revise the definition of “single housekeeping unit” within the zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together (Program 2O, at 4-12); and,
• The City will review and adopt revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws per the [following] objective: City will review and revise the City’s zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses (Program 2P, at 4-12).

See Exhibit 2 attached.

Third, on June 29, 2023, the California Attorney General’s office filed an amicus brief on behalf of the California HCD and California CivilRights Department (“CRD”) in The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 22-56181, urging the Ninth Circuit to reverse of the judgment the judgment of the district court. A copy of that brief is attached as Exhibit 3. In that brief, filed June 29, 2023, the Attorney General advised the Ninth Circuit that the City’s asserted “fundamental alteration” justification for denying The Ohio House’s 2017 request for reasonable accommodation failed as matter of law. Exhibit 3 at 22-23.

According to the Attorney General,
Assuming only for purposes of argument that the City’s goal [of reducing the effects of group homesto prevent “institutuionalization” of residential neighborhoods] was legitimate, the court’s order did not discuss any sufficient evidence showing that a deviation from the 650-foot separation rule would lead to these negative results, let alone any sufficient evidence that the 100-foot departure from the rule that Ohio House requested would do so. Indeed, Ohio House had already been located 550 feet from another group home, and there was no Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 6 ends

sufficient evidence discussed that this had created an institutionalized setting.

Moreover, the City’s concerns are a far cry from what are properly considered fundamental alterations. FEHA and its regulations specifically anticipate that cities will need to adjust their zoning codes to reasonably accommodate disability-related housing needs, Gov’t Code § 12927(c)(1); Cal. Code Regs tit. 2, § 12180(c)(6), undercutting the City’s argument that the claimed speculative effects of increased density alleged here could be considered fundamental alterations. Here, the allegations of increased parking needs, van traffic, and loading and unloading passengers, [fn. omitted] which could come from any home with several residents—such as a multigenerational family living together, a home that receives a large number of deliveries or visitors, or families with regular carpools—is unlikely to rise to the level of changing the “essential nature” of a residentially-zoned neighborhood.

Because these effects can be caused by many different sources, they should be addressed by generally applicable parking regulations, traffic calming measures, or occupancy standardsinstead of singling out group homes with discriminatory and constraining regulations. See, e.g., Adamson, 27 Cal. 3d at 133; Group Home Technical Advisory at 30-31.

The City’s reaction to its claimed concerns also did not consider its obligations under state law to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

These obligations include, among other things, protecting individuals with disabilities’ right to housing of their choice, and the housing they find most suitable for their disability-related needs, while removing constraints on their ability to obtain this housing. See, e.g., Gov’t Code §§ 8899.50; 65583(a)(5), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(10)(A). The accommodation Ohio House has requested may be consistent with, and indeed required by, state housing law. The district court’s failure to consider the requested accommodation in light of the City’s obligations under state law was error.

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 7 ends

Exhibit 3 at 22-24. Nor was the City’s concern about “institutionalization” of zoned residential neighborhoods supported by evidence sufficient to justify denial of the reasonable accommodation request under state law because it would cause a fundamental alteration in the City’s zoning of residential neighborhoods. Exhibit 3 at 22.

Fourth, on November 29, 2023, HCD advised the City that it had “reviewed the City’s group home ordinances and related policies under its authority pursuant to Government Code section 65585,” and found that “the City’s group home ordinances and related policies violate Government Code sections 65008, 65583, and 8899.50 by failing to meet the City’s obligations to affirmatively further, protect, and remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, and also by discriminating against this housing.” A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 4. HCD directed the City to “immediately stop enforcing its group home ordinances, repeal them, and revise its reasonable accommodations policies.” Exhibit 4 at p. 11.

Fifth, after the City enacted in 2014, 2015, and 2017 zoning regulations intended to “limit the number and concentration of group homes and sober living facilities” in its residential zones, The Ohio House, 2024 WL 5668044, at *15, it aggressively enforced those regulations, denying every request for reasonable accommodation by a group or sober living home seeking relief fromstrict compliance with the retroactive application of those new regulations. It granted only two of the 26 CUP applications by group homes under CMMC § 13-323. As a result, the City has accomplished its goal. The alleged proliferation of unlicensed group and sober living homesin Costa Mesa has been arrested and reversed. Compare 2014 and 2025 maps, attached as Exhibits 5 and 6. Today, there are substantially fewer housing opportunities for disabled persons seeking sober or supportive in Costa Mesa than in 2014, 2015, or 2017, as discussed further below.

IV. This request for reasonable accommodation is supported by information that enables the Director to make each of the findings required for approval under CMMC § 13-200.62(f).

A. CMMC § 13-200.26(f)(1). The requested accommodation is requested Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 8 ends

by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws.

This application provides the information and documentation necessary to enable the Director to make this finding. Under California’s FEHA, a “disability” is a condition that “limits a major life activity” bymaking “the achievement of the major life activity difficult.” Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12926(j), (m), 12955.3. “Major life activities” include “physical, mental, and social activities and working.” Id. • The residents of The Ohio House have already been found to be “actually disabled” under federal and state law. The Ohio House, LLC v. City ofCosta Mesa, No. 8:19-cv-1710-JVS, 2022 WL 2189640, *9-10 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2022).
• The Ohio House provides a structured sober living environment for men in recovery from alcohol and substance abuse who are considered disabled and state and federal law. See Certification by the operator of The Ohio House that “only residents (other than the house manager) who are handicapped as defined by state and federal law shall reside at the group home,” attached as Exhibit 7, and print out from The Ohio House’s website, https://www.ohio-house.com, attached as Exhibit 8. • Most but not all residents come to The Ohio House after completing a substance abuse treatment program. They join The Ohio House as residents because it provides housing in the form of a structured, supportive environment that sustains and strengthens their sobriety. To be eligible to become a resident, an individual must not be a current user of drugs or alcohol. See The Ohio House’s admission agreement and residency rules attached as Exhibit 9.
• To maintain a drug and alcohol-free environment, Ohio House performs drug testing on residents and enforces a zero-tolerance policy for residents who relapses. See Exhibit 9.

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 9 ends

• Upon admission, Ohio House residents sign an agreement that they will abide by rulesincluding (1) total abstinence from drugs and alcohol; (2) agreement to being drug tested a minimumof twice per week; (3) for the first 90 days of admission, residents are required to attend at least one 12-Step meeting every day; (4) abiding by a curfew; and (5) performing daily activities, including assigned chores. See Exhibit 9. • The Ohio House is designed for persons who cannot live independently without the fear or threat of relapse into alcoholism and substance abuse were they to return to their former living situations. The Ohio House provides residents in recovery with the opportunity to learn to live independently in a structured, safe environment in a residential neighborhood.
• Each resident submitting this application – Castaneda, Miller, Blake, McReynolds, Palmer – is an individual with a disability under state law.

Each suffered a wide variety of limitations of their major life activities due to their addiction to drugs or alcohol, including the ability to sustain employment, maintain stable housing, and preserve their social and familial relationship due to their addiction. Each is in recovery from their addiction to drug or alcohol and each abstains from any use of drugs or alcohol. Each depends on the structured, supportive housing provided by Ohio House to maintain their sobriety, without which they risk relapse. Under separate cover, we will submit signed statements by each resident establishing that they are persons with disabilities within the meaning of state law and why the requested accommodation is necessary to enable them an equal opportunity to live in their chosen residence.

B. CMMC § 13-200.26(f)(2). The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The accommodations requested by The Ohio House and its residents are Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 10 ends

necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

1. The accommodation is “necessary.”
In deciding whether an accommodation is “necessary,” §13-200.62(e)(1) provides that
the director may consider, among other things: The nature of the disability including the special needs created by the disability, the physical attributes and setting of the property and structures, the potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested accommodation, and alternative accommodations that may provide a comparable level of benefit.

The City has ordered The Ohio House to stop providing housing for persons with disabilities. Judge Selna previously found that an accommodation in the City’s group home regulations was necessary to afford an equal opportunity to The Ohio House’s residents because “butfor the accommodation” the disabled persons residing at Ohio House cannot reside in the dwelling of their choosing. The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 8:19-cv-1710-JVS, 2022 WL 18284406, at *8 (C.D. Cal.

Nov. 16, 2022). When, as here, the regulation “entirely prevents” the applicant from living or operating the dwelling at issue, the element that the accommodation be “necessary” is easily met. Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1155 (9th Cir. 2003). Without a reasonable accommodation, The Ohio House must close and all of its residents must be displaced, including the five residents joining this request who have chosen The Ohio House as their home.

2. The accommodation is necessary to afford one or more individuals with a disability an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”
Ohio House provides supportive, structured sober housing for persons in recovery from substance abuse, a type of housing necessary for many persons in Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 11 ends

recovery from substance abuse. Residency is open-ended and the average length of residence is seven months.

Sober or recovery housing, like The Ohio House, is recognized as a key element on the substance abuse care continuum which includes early intervention, treatment, and recovery support. “Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report of Alcohol, Drugs, and Health,” U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services at p. 4-4 (2016), attached as Exhibit 10. According to the Surgeon General, the “treatment” of substance abuse is provided through medication, counseling, and other supportive services. Levels of care of treatment include outpatient services, intensive outpatient/partial hospitalization services,residential/inpatient services, and medicallymanaged intensive inpatientservices. Id. “Recovery support,” on the other hand, includes the support services that “aid the long-term recovery process” and “facilitate recovery, wellness, and improved quality of life.” Id.

As a sober living home, The Ohio House is an integral part of the continuum of care because it plays a key role in recovery support. Licensed residentialsubstance abuse treatment facilities do not and cannot fulfill that need. Recovery-supportive housing provides “both a substance-free environment andmutualsupportfromfellow recovering residents. Many residents stay in recovery housing during and/or after outpatient treatment, with self-determined residency lasting for several months to years.” Id. at p. 5-11. Sober living homes “are alcohol and drug free living environments that offer peer support for recovery outside the context of treatment.” Polcin, et al., Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, “What Did We Learn from Our Study on Sober Living Houses and Where Do We Go from Here?” Vol. 42(4):425-433 (Dec. 2010), attached as Exhibit 11. Successful sober living provides not only a substance-free environment, but also provides social support – both from house managers and from fellow residents – which increases the likelihood of an individual’s continued sobriety.

Studies uniformly find that the socialsupport of the type provided at The Ohio House is important in establishing sustained abstinence, and that “[a] critically important aspect of one’s social network is their living environment.” Id. at p. 2.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 12 ends

(SAMHSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, community support “is a critical aspect of achieving and maintaining recovery”:

The transition from active addiction into lasting recovery is often a difficult and emotionally trying journey for many people with a substance-use disorder. NIDA (2018) indicated that the relapse ratesfor substance-use disorders is approximately 40-60%, and that relapses could signify the necessity to reexamine a person’s course of treatment, as relapses can be very dangerous and in many instances deadly. The first 12 months of this transitional period prior to the onset of sustained full remission, sometimes referred to as early recovery, is a crucial period during which people contend with raw core clinical issues such as family history, unresolved trauma, grief and loss, emotional immaturity, low frustration tolerance, and other factors that make them susceptible to relapse. However, Moos & Moos (2006) determined that individuals with more ‘social capital’ are more likely to show improved outcomes for short term remission. Therefore, recovery houses are uniquely qualified to assist individuals in all phases of recovery, especially those in early recovery, by furnishing social capital and recovery supports.
“Recovery Housing: Best Practices and Suggested Guidelines,” SAMHSA at p. 3 (2018), attached as Exhibit 12.

Living at The Ohio House provides residents with the necessary structure and support that roommate housing or licensed treatment or detox facilities do not serve.

At The Ohio House, residents
are encouraged to provide mutual support and encouragement for recovery with fellow peers in the house. Those who have been in the house the longest and who have more time in recovery are especially encouraged to provide support to new residents. This type of ‘giving back’ is consistent with a principle of recovery in 12-step groups. Residents are also encouraged to avoid friends and family who might encourage them to use alcohol and drugs, Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 13 ends

particularly individuals with whom they have used substances in the past.

Polcin, et al., attached as Exhibit 11.

Disabled persons in recovery, particularly those in early recovery, need the supportive environment that comes from sharing housing with other persons in recovery. According to Nancy Clark, a treatment provider in Costa Mesa whom the City recognizes as an expert, it is essential that persons in recovery have roommates in recovery so that “they don’t self-isolate, which can lead to relapse.” This is one of the cornerstones of the unique housing opportunity provided by The Ohio House.

The experience of each resident applying for this reasonable accommodation echoes Clark’s assessment:The Ohio House istheir home where they draw necessary support from their housematesto maintain and strengthen their sobriety in a structured living environment.

C. CMMC § 13-200.26(f)(3). The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, as “undue financial or administrative burden” is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law.

The City has never claimed, nor is there any evidence that granting a request for reasonable accommodation by The Ohio House or its residents would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. It is undisputed that The Ohio House has not been cited for any code violations except for operating without the CUP required by § 13-323.

Section § 13-200.26(e)(2)(a) states that “[i]n considering the financial or administrative burden on the City, the director may consider, among other things, the extent to which the City would have to dedicate resources, such as staff time and funds, to grant the request and other requestslike it.” Reviewing land use applications and reasonable accommodation requests is part of the City’s every day functions and cannot impose an undue burden. Nor is there any evidence that granting the reasonable accommodation would impose financial or administrative burdens on the City. As stated in HCD’s November 29, 2023 letter, the City “may not place the Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 14 ends

burden on reasonable accommodation applicants to demonstrate that their requested accommodations would not create undue burdens on the City or fundamental alterations to its zoning code.” Exhibit 4 at 10. If itso contends, the burden is on the City to come forward with evidence supporting that contention.

D. CMMC § 13-200.26(f)(4). The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use.

City Planning staff previously found and reported to the Planning Commission andCityCouncil that The Ohio House on Wilson “has demonstrated its compatibility with the neighborhood over the past three years.” See Exhibit 13 at 8. The Ohio House issituated along an alleyway that adjoins a strip mall fronting the 55 Freeway, as depicted in this map:

The Ohio House is not only compatible with its Zoning District, it also fits with the surrounding uses, as reported by City Planning Staff:

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 15 ends

The property is zonedR2-MD(Multiple-FamilyResidential, MediumDensity) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial Residential.

Multi-family residential uses that are also zoned R2-MD abut the site to the east and south; student housing for Vanguard University under a PDR-MD (Planned Development Residential - Medium Density) zone exists across East Wilson Street to the north; with a commercial center zoned C1 (Local Business District) existing across the alley to the west of the subject property.

Exhibit 13 at 3. The City also found in 2019 that The Ohio House’s operation as a sober living home in that location is consistent with the City’ General Plan. See Exhibit 14 at 12.

The Ohio House is consistent with its land use designation of Commercial Residential under the General Plan which allows for 12 to

17.4 dwelling units per acre (more than allowed for medium-density residential) and serves as a buffer between Newport Boulevard and residential neighborhoods. (LU 32-33.) The medium density residential zoning designation is “also appropriate for quasi-residential uses such as convalescent hospitals and private residential care. Schools, religious institutions, parks, libraries, and related public facilities are also appropriate.” (Land Use Element at LU-28.)
That finding is cemented in light of the City’s current Housing Element, 2021-2029, including Chapter 4: The City Housing Plan.

E. CMMC § 13-200.26(f)(5). The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others.

The City has never claimed that granting The Ohio House’s request for reasonable accommodation would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. Such a finding must be made based on objective evidence, not stereotypes. 2 C.C.R. § Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 16 ends

12179(b)(3)(B).

F. CMMC § 13-200.26(f)(6). If economic viability is raised by the applicant as part of the applicant’s showing that the requested accommodation is necessary, then a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally, not just for that particular applicant.

The Ohio House and its residents do not invoke this criterion as a basis of this request for reasonable accommodation at this time.

G. CMMC § 13-200.26(f)(7). Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.

In its November 29, 2023 letter, HCD informed the City that its reasonable accommodation regulation must be amended, including the repeal of this finding.

The City should review its reasonable accommodation policies in Municipal Code section 13-200.62, along with its application of these policies, to ensure compliance with state law. For example, the City: . . . (iii) may not require applicants to show that they could not find any other housing within the city that would meet their disability related needs.

Exhibit 4. HCD’s finding tracks Judge Selna’s finding that “existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community that could provide individuals with a disability an opportunity to live in a residential setting does not satisfy a disabled person’s right to a dwelling opportunity of his or her choice.” The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 2022 WL 18284406, at *8.

Nonetheless, the fact is that Costa Mesa currently faces a substantial need for Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 17 ends

the housing provided by The Ohio House.

1. Licensed substance abuse facilities do not provide the housing opportunities provided by The Ohio House.

When considering whether the housing offered byThe Ohio House is necessary to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities who want to live in Costa Mesa’s residential neighborhoods, the existence of DHCS-licensed residential substance abuse treatmentfacilities and homes used by intensive outpatient programs to house their outpatients do not factor into the analysis. Sober living homes do not provide substance abuse treatment but instead play a separate, significant – and unique – role in the substance abuse treatment/recovery continuum of care. See Part IV.B.2, above.

Even if the City were to erroneously conflate The Ohio House’s structured sober housing with licensed treatmentfacilities, there are significantly fewer licensed treatment facilities in Costa Mesa today. In 2017, the City denied Ohio House’s request for reasonable accommodation, pointing to the “63-state-licensed drug and alcohol residential treatment facilities in Costa Mesa that are not subject to the Special Use Permit requirements, or have already obtained the required conditional use permit.” Exhibit 15 at 5. Today, that is no longer true: Information from the most recent update to the DHCS website shows that there are only four licensed residential facilities and 32 licensed residential-detox facilities in Costa Mesa. See Exhibit 16 attached. None of these licensed treatment or detox facilities provide the type of housing that The Ohio House supplies.

Nancy Clark, the City’s acknowledged expert on these matters, has observed that there are “very, very few traditional sober livings [in Costa Mesa] available for people transitioning out of treatment.” Clark, who operates a large licensed treatment facility in Costa Mesa, complains that she has nowhere in Costa Mesa to send her clients upon completing treatment for sober living. They often had to leave Costa Mesa and go to Santa Ana to locate the sober housing they needed in order to continue the next stage of their recovery process. See Exhibit 17, excerpts of the Deposition of Nancy Clark taken November 15, 2021, at 154:9-18. As for relocating Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 18 ends

the Ohio House to another location in Costa Mesa, Clark statesthat a home operating before enactment of the City’s regulations would be unlikely to find an alternative site in Costa Mesa if forced to relocate. Clark Depo. at 156:12-20.

The City’s own data supportsClark’s opinions. Today, there are very few sober living homes in Costa Mesa available to provide supportive housing as part of the continuum of care for recovery from substance abuse. See “City Approved Sober Living/Group Homes WEB,” attached as Exhibit 18 and compare Exhibit 5 with Exhibit 6. The Ohio House consistently operates at capacity, providing sober living to 7 to 8 men in each of the five units on Wilson Avenue.

To determine whether there are available opportunitiesfor sober living for men in Costa Mesa, Ohio House contacted, or attempted to contact, each of the unlicensed sober living homes listed on the City’s website on the list for “City Approved Sober Living/Group Homes WEB,” Exhibit 18 attached. There are 16 homes on that list.

Three of the homes are DHCS-licensed treatment facilities. 1 The remaining 13 are
unlicensed sober living homes operating with a special use permit or conditional use permit issued by the City, allegedly providing 112 beds for sober living opportunities.
2 As of this week, Ohio House confirmed that two of the unlicensed homes(2735 Cibola and 2879 Monterey providing 18 beds) are for women only. Two other homes (582 Pierpont Drive 331 16th Street providing 12 beds) are no longer operating. Two of those homes are reserved for homeless men (2015 and 2025 Charle Street providing 34 beds), typically referred from county agencies. 1 693 Plumer Street (15 beds), 209-211 18th Street East (12 beds), and 1110 Victoria Street (38 beds).
2 492 Broadway (6 beds), 2735 Cibola (12 beds), 2879 Monterey (6 beds), 582 Pierpont Drive (6 beds), 2152 Raleigh Avenue (6 beds), 2064 Republic Avenue (6 beds), 1068 San Pablo Circle (6 beds), 862 Senate Street (6 beds), 506 Traverse Drive (6 beds), 2015 and 2025 Charle Street (34 beds), and 165 Wilson Street (12 beds).

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 19 ends

The seven City-permitted homes offering unlicensed sober living provide just a handful of opportunities for structured sober living like that offered by The Ohio House. Each home The Ohio House was able to make contact with (492 Broadway, 165 Wilson Street, as well as the two Charle Street homes for homeless men) have waiting lists or are consistently operating at full capacity with occasional vacancies.

The Ohio House’s home on Senate Street also consistently operates at capacity. The Ohio House will supplement this request if it is able to obtain information from the four remaining homes on Raleigh, Republic, San Pablo, and Traverse.

In summary, of the potential 112 beds in City-approved sober living homes, 18 are for women only, 12 have closed, and 34 are reserved for homeless men. Of the remaining 48 beds, 24 are in homes that report being consistently full with few vacancies. The remaining 24 beds are in homes The Ohio House has not been able to make contact with to confirm whether they regularly have beds available for men who seek traditional sober living, not tied to a treatment facility. Either way, the closure of The Ohio House which consistently provides sober living to between 30 and 45 men in recovery, will foreclose housing opportunitiesfor currentresidents and future residents alike since.

And, the need for sober living as part of the treatment continuuminCosta Mesa is greater than the supply. See Exhibit 19 at p. CA-9, SAMSHA data (showing that from 2016-2018, 5.79 % of the residents of Orange County age 12 or older needed, but did not receive, treatment for substance abuse).

For all of these reasons, the structured sober housing offered by Ohio House provides persons with disabilities with an equal opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods while they continue to strengthen their sobriety and learn the skills necessary to live independently without relapse. Without group home residential opportunities in residential areas, disabled persons in recovery do not have the same opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods as non-disabled persons who are able to live independently without supported group housing. And, the accommodation allowing Ohio House to continue to provide structured sober living is necessary to enable the current residents of The Ohio House joining in this request and future residents to reside in the housing of their choice in Costa Mesa.

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 20 ends

H. CMMC § 13-200.26(f)(8). The requested accommodation is reasonable and will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’s zoning program.

Will making a modest exception to the SHU definition or separation requirement for the limited purpose of allowing a sober living location to continue to provide housing to disabled persons result in “fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’s zoning program?” The answer under FEHA and the City’s own criteria is no.

Start with the City’s own regulation. According to CMMC § 13- 200.26(e)(2)(b),
In considering the potential alteration to a City program, such as the City’s zoning scheme, the director may consider, among other things, whether granting the request would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, with the purpose and nature of the particular zoning district, and with nearby uses. The director may also consider whether the requested accommodation would potentially have adverse external impacts on properties in the vicinity.

None of these factors supports finding that making modest exceptions to strict compliance with the Single Housekeeping Unit definition or a reduction in the separate requirement for Ohio House only would create a fundamental alteration of the nature of the City’s zoning program. As discussed above, the City’s Planning Staff has already determined and reported to the Planning Commission and City Council The Ohio House’s request to remain open conforms to the City’s General Plan which determines the nature of the City’s zoning program. • General Plan Conformance:
“• Goal LU-1 F .1: Land Use and Goal HOU-1.2: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including mobile home parks(and manufactured housing parks) from the encroachment of incompatible Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 21 ends

or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Consistency: The City’s regulations are intended to preserve the residential character of the City’s neighborhoods. This facility has demonstrated its compatibility with the neighborhood over the past three years.” “• Goal HOU-1.8: Housing Element: Encourage the development of housing that fulfills specialized needs. Consistency: The proposed request provides for a supportive living environment for persons who are considered disabled under state and federal law.” (January 31, 2019 Planning Commission Agenda Report re CUP PA-17-10 at p. 8.) Under the current Housing Element, these findings are stronger than ever.

Under the City’s zoning authority, if thisrequest is compatible with theGeneral Plan, which is clear is, then it for sure cannot be deemed a fundamental alteration of the City’s zoning program. The General Plan, not the Zoning Code, that establishes “the essential nature” of the City’s land use program. See 2 CCR §12179(e) (fundamental alteration changes “essential nature” of operations). The City’s Zoning Code “is a tool for implementing the goals, objectives and policies of the Costa Mesa General Plan.” CMMC §13-3(a) (emphasis added). An exception to a “tool” cannot be viewed as a fundamental alteration. Nor can an exception that is “consistent with the general plan” be viewed as a fundamental alteration.

Moreover, the City’s group home regulations repeatedly and expressly recognizesthat requests for relief fromstrict compliance with those regulationsis not a fundamental alteration of the City’s zoning program. Instead, it is built into the zoning code itself. The City’s regulations explicitly invite group homes, like Ohio House, to request relief from strict compliance. Acceptance of an explicit invitation cannot be viewed as cause for a fundamental alternation. See CMMC § 13- 311(a)(15) (“An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of thissection by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above thissection is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section 13-200.62.”); § 13-322(c)(“An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 22 ends

setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to Article 15 of Chapter IX of Title 13 of this Code”); § 9-374 (“An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to Article 15 of Chapter IX of Title 13 of this Code.”) If there is a fundamental feature of the City’s group home regulations, it is the invitation and acknowledgment that reasonable accommodation seeking relief from the strict application of the City’s retroactively group home requirements are a fundamental aspect of the City’s zoning program and not an alteration of that program. The City’s reasonable accommodation regulations do not convert this fundamental feature of the City’s group home regulation into a fundamental alteration:

Any person seeking approval to construct and/or modify residential housing for person(s) with disabilities, and/or operate a residential care facility, group home, or referral facility, which will substantially serve persons with disabilities may apply for a reasonable accommodation to obtain relief from a Zoning Code provision, regulation, policy, or condition which causes a barrier to equal opportunity for housing. CMMC § 13-200.61.
a. Making modest exceptions to the current definition of Single Housekeeping Unit for The Ohio House to remain open does not cause a fundamental alternation of the City’s zoning program.

Making an accommodation in the application ofthe “single housekeeping unit” definition is necessary to enable residents to continue to live in the housing of their choice in the community. The relations between residents of each Ohio House unit meet many of the indicia of a single housekeeping unit. The Ohio House residents “have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, [and] household activities.” CMMC § 13-6.

The average length of residency is seven months. Although members do not share a single lease agreement and do not have control over who becomes a member of the household, The Ohio House does not have those attributes because they conflict with Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 23 ends

the need to ensure that all members of the household are adhering to nonnegotiable requirement of maintaining sobriety and the other house rules that ensure accountability and engender supportive relationships between household members. 3 In addition, The Ohio House lacksthe other City-identified factorsindicating that the use is not a single housekeeping unit – members of The Ohio House households do not have separate, private entrances from other members; members of the household do not have locks on their bedroom doors; members of the household do not have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators. CMMC § 13-6.

The experiences of residents George Castaneda, Diego Blake, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, and Robert Palmer supports that conclusion. They and their housemates share meals together, rotate and keep in touch about chores, and spend time with each other providing mutualsupport. More details will be provided in their statements supplementing this application to be submitted next week.

An accommodation in the strict application of the City’s single housekeeping unit definition is neither unreasonable nor would it cause a fundamental alteration in the City’s zoning code or neighborhoods because, inter alia, HCD has advised the City that its definition of “single housekeeping unit” conflicts with state housing law.

See Exhibit 4 at 6. Granting this request is also in keeping with the Goal #2 of the City’s Housing Element portion of the General to “[f]acilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.” (Housing Element at 4-6.)
Granting this request is required by FEHA. While § 13-200.26(e)(2)(b) 3 Section 13-6 also includes an suggestion that in a single housekeeping unit “the residential activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis.” It is not clear exactly what is intended. Housing rented on a nonprofit basis is not the norm. The residents of The Ohio House are not performing household functions for recompense. In any event, to the extent the City believes that The Ohio House is conducting “residential activities” at Wilson Street, those activities are part and parcel of the supportive, structured living environment that is an integral part of the housing offered by The Ohio House to people with disabilities.

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 24 ends

suggests that the director “may also consider whether the requested accommodation would potentially have adverse external impacts on properties in the vicinity,” both HCD and CRD have made clear that those adverse external impacts must be based on evidence regardingThe Ohio House, not based on assumptionsregarding sober living in general. See HCD November 29, 2023 letter, Exhibit 4 at 8-10, Amicus Brief, Exhibit 3 at 24-25; Technical Analysis, Exhibit 1 at 19-20 (“Denials of reasonable accommodation requests must be based on individualized assessments, and specific evidence, not generalized or speculative concerns about group homes or persons with disabilities.”).

It is also required under the City’s obligations under the State Planning and Zoning Law. There would be no fundamental alteration in the City’s zoning scheme to treat The Ohio House as a single-family household. Indeed, the HCD’s Group Home Technical Advisory advises that group homes like The Ohio House should be treated as single-family households. Exhibit 1 at 24-25. The operation of The Ohio House is consistent with and complies with the general regulations applicable to all single-family households in Costa Mesa. The relations between residents of each Ohio House unit meet many of the indicia of a single housekeeping unit and those in which it differs are based on the disability-related needs of the residents. See also Exhibit 2, City Housing Program 2O (amending definition of Single Housekeeping Unit in line with this application.)
b. Granting the alternative request for relief from strict compliance with the separate requirement would not cause a fundamental alternation to the City’s zoning program.

For the same reasons discussed above – and bolstered by the City’s new Program 2P: Group Homes (Exhibit 2) – reducing the separation requirement so that The Ohio House may remain open does not cause a fundamental alteration to the City’s zoning program.

To start, there has been a material change in circumstances. According to the most recent DHCS list of licensed treatment homes, the two licensed homes in the City found to be in close proximity to Ohio House are now closed. See Exhibit 16.

Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 25 ends

There remains the CUP permitted group home – approximately 550 feet from The Ohio House. For the reasons stated by HCD and the Attorney General, the proximity of these homes does not justify the denial of this application. See Exhibits 1,3, 4.

But the facts on the ground also tell a compelling story. The location of The Ohio House istruly unique. Sequestered along an alleyway, abutting a strip mall that fronts the 55 Freeway and across the street from student housing, there are few locations in Costa Mesa where a sober living home could be more compatible with (and largely isolated from) its neighbors. It is not surprising, therefore, that Nancy Clark, the City’s acknowledged expert, observed that the proximity between The Ohio House and the group home with a CUP do not generate an “institutionalized” environment. See Exhibit 17 at 182:16-19.) To Clark, the area around The Ohio House does not feel institutionalized. Id. at 182:24-183:2.

V. Additional factors do not support finding that granting The Ohio House’s requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’s zoning program, CMMC § 13-200.62(g).

A. CMMC § 13-200.62(g)(1). Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood.

Granting the accommodation will not fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. The Ohio House consists of a common interest development that is in compliance with the City’s development standards (except lot width). Each unit faces the alley running parallel to Newport Boulevard and the rear of the businesses facing Newport Boulevard. Across Wilson Street is student housing for Vanguard University. Other than the abatement citations and action, Ohio House has not been subject to any code enforcement actions. This residential property fits in with the character of the neighborhood.

B. CMMC § 13-200.62(g)(2). Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking.

Granting the requested accommodation will not result in a substantial increase Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 26 ends

in traffic or insufficient parking. Each unit has a garage and driveway parking spaces.

Most residents do not have cars and there is a 30-day waiting period before a new resident may have a car. The City does not restrict residency in single-family residences based on the potential number of vehicles residents may have. As stated above, concerns about increases in traffic or insufficient parking must relate to The Ohio House itself, not be based on generalized concerns about sober living homes or multi-family housing. See HCD November 29, 2023 letter, Exhibit 4 at 8-10, Amicus Brief, Exhibit 3 at 24-25; Technical Analysis, Exhibit 1 at 19-20 C. CMMC § 13-200.62(g)(3). Whether granting the requested accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the City’s general plan or an applicable specific plan.

As discussed above, granting the requested accommodation would further, not under, the express purposes set forth in the City’s General Plan. Housing Goal #2 of the City’s Housing Element 2021-2029 is to “Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.” (Housing Element at 4-6.) Groups with special housing needs include persons with disabilities, including those who require supportive housing, who “generally have special housing needs that must be provided with the City’s housing stock.” (General Plan, Community Profile at 2-20.)
D. CMMC § 13-200.62(g)(4). Whether the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation.

The requested accommodation will not result in an institutionalized environment due to the number or and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation. Because The Ohio House operates consistent with the requirements the City applies to single housekeeping units, its siting 550 feet from another City-approved sober living home at 165 E. Wilson Street will not create an institutionalized environment.

Proof of an institutionalized environment requires evidence that a reduction of Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 27 ends

100 feet will cause the neighborhood to be “institutionalized.” Given the reduction in sober living city-wide, and the existence of only one other sober living home anywhere near The Ohio House, there simply is no evidence of institutionalization supporting denial of this request.

E. CMMC § 13-200.62(g)(5). Any other factors that would cause a fundamental alteration in the city’s zoning program, as may be defined in the Fair Housing Law.

None, for the reasons already set forth above.

VI. Neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel support denying this request.

The City has contended that Ohio House’s 2023 request for reasonable accommodation was “both untimely and barred by the doctrine of res judicata/collateral estoppel.” Even if the City were to disregard the material changes in circumstances nullifying those assertions, neither assertion is valid under the California state law governing this application.

First, California’s FEHA is unique in providing greater protection to disabled persons than the federal Fair Housing Act. FEHA explicitly rejects each of the bases for the City’s denial of Ohio House’s 2023 request for reasonable accommodation as HCD and CRD informed the Ninth Circuit.

Second, the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel in no way limit the City’s duty to robustly apply FEHA’s obligationsin evaluating this application. This application is not only based on material changes in circumstances – not considered by either the district court or the Ninth Circuit in ruling on the 2017 request – it also is presented by new parties, the residents who face homelessness if Ohio House is closed. 2 C.C.R. § 12176(f)(4)(A request for reasonable accommodation under FEHA “may be made at any time, including . . . occupancy of a housing accommodation, during litigation, at or after trial, and after judgment in appropriate circumstances.”)
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 28 ends

Third, the City’s duty to apply FEHA’s state law requirements to this application is in no way precluded or limited by the district court’s finding or the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance. The district court’s verdict did not find that any relief for strict compliance with the City’s regulations under any circumstances was a fundamental alternation; instead, the verdict was necessarily limited to Ohio House’s 2017 request, which lacked all the material changes in circumstances that underlying this application. Since a jury’s verdict cannot settle the law, but solely decides the facts regarding a particular situation, the jury’s conclusion that the City’s denial of Ohio House’s 2017 reasonable accommodation request did not violate the fair housing laws has no preclusive effect on the application of FEHA to this new application.

While the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, it explicitly stated that its ruling applied solely to the narrower federal Fair Housing Act and not FEHA, the law governing this application. It did not consider and made no ruling as to whether the City’s denial of Ohio House’s 2017 reasonable accommodation request violated California’s FEHA. As to the Fair Housing Act only, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’sfinding that the jury was presented with sufficient evidence “on which to find that Ohio House’s requested accommodation was unreasonable because it would cause a ‘fundamental alteration’ of the City’s zoning scheme. The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, __ F.4th __, 2024 WL 5668044, *22 (9th Cir. April 24, 2025) (amended opinion). Under the Fair Housing Act, the Ninth Circuit did not hold that a reduction of the City’s 650-footseparation requirement for a specific group home would cause a fundamental alteration in the City’s zoning scheme as a matter of law.

VII. The Ohio House requests that the City engage in an interactive process and, if necessary, try to identify if there is another accommodation or modification that is equally effective.

FEHA regulations provide that
the person considering the request must try to identify if there is another accommodation or modification that is equally effective and must Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 29 ends

discuss with the individual with the disability or the individual’s representative whether other alternative accommodations or modifications would be equally effective in meeting the needs of the individual with a disability. Equally effective meansthat the alternative accommodation or modification will allow the person with the disability to use and enjoy a dwelling or housing opportunity as well as the requested accommodation or modification would have.
2 C.C.R. § 12177(c). The City’s reasonable accommodation regulations are similar.

If the City denies this application, then the Director should consider “alternative reasonable accommodations which provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant.” CMMC § 13-200.62(f); accord § 13-200.62(e)(1).

One possibility is classifying The Ohio House as “Supportive Housing” and subjecting it to the same regulations that apply to any other multifamily dwelling located in a R2-MD (Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density) district and a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial Residential. * * *
If the City has any questions or concerns regarding this application, please communicate them to me directly via email. Thank you.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
[email protected]
cc: Kimberly H. Barlow, City Attorney
Seymour Everett
Applicants
Exhibits:

1. Group Home Technical Advisory, CA Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development (December 2022)
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 30 ends

2. Costa Mesa Housing Element Chapter 4: Housing Plan adopted by the City and approved by HCD

3. California Attorney General’s amicus brief filed on behalf of the California Department of Housing and Community Development and California Civil Rights Department in The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 9th Cir. No. 22-56181

4. November 29, 2023 letter from HCD to City re Group Home Ordinances – Letter of Technical Assistance

5. Map of licensed and unlicensed group and sober living homes 2014

6. Map of unlicensed sober living homes permitted by the City 2025

7. Ohio House certification in support of reasonable accommodation

8. Ohio House website page

9. Ohio House admission agreement and residency rules

10. “Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report of Alcohol, Drugs, and Health,” U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services (2016)

11. Polcin, et al., Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, “What Did We Learn from Our Study on Sober Living Houses and Where Do We Go from Here?” Vol. 42(4):425-433 (Dec. 2010)

12. “Recovery Housing: Best Practices and Suggested Guidelines,” SAMHSA (2018)

13. January 31, 2019 Planning Commission Agenda Report re CUP PA 17-10
Carrie Tai, Director
Economic and Development Services
May 2, 2025

Page 31 ends

14. City Council Resolution 19-14

15. Denial of The Ohio House’s 2017 request for reasonable accommodation.

16. DCHS licensed residential treatment facilities in Costa Mesa downloaded in April 2025

17. Nancy Clark deposition excerpts

18. City Approved Sober Living/Group Homes WEB downloaded April 2025

19. SAMHSA data
EXHIBIT 1

December 2022

GROUP HOME

TECHNICAL ADVISORY

CA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary 1

2. Terms Used 5

3. Background 6

4. Framework for Assessing if Local Land Use Policies and Practices Comply with State Housing Laws’ Protections of Group Homes 8
A. Do the Policies and Practices Comply with Housing Element Law and AFFH Requirements? 9
B. Do the Policies and Practices Unlawfully Discriminate Based on Disability or Other Protected Characteristics? 12
i. Intentional Discrimination 14
ii. Discriminatory Effects 17
iii. Reasonable Accommodations 18

5. Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing Requirements 20

6. State Law Provides Broader Protections Than Federal Law 22

7. Common Issues In Local Ordinances That Regulate Group Homes 23 A. Definitions of Single Housekeeping Units or Single-Family Homes 24 B. Requirements that All Group Homes with More than Six Residents Must Obtain Permits to Locate in Single-Family Zones 25
C. Retroactive Compliance 27
D. Spacing Requirements 27
E. Occupancy Limits and Building, Fire, or Other Health and Safety Code Requirements 30
F. Requirements For Operators and Residents 30
G. Civil Actions for Operating Without a Required State License 33 H. Enforcing Generally Applicable Municipal Codes and Other Laws 36

8. Resource Materials and State Contacts 36
1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Group homes are an especially important type of housing for persons with disabilities.

By supporting their residents’ individualized needs while providing flexible and affordable housing options, group homes help persons with disabilities live in deinstitutionalized settings that facilitate their integration into local communities.

In recent years, some local governments have amended their zoning ordinances to add new regulations for group homes, particularly for recovery residences—group homes that provide housing for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. These amendments have raised concerns that local governments are not complying with their affirmative obligations under state planning and zoning laws to promote more inclusive communities and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). These amendments have also generated disputes and confusion over whether local governments are violating fair housing laws by discriminating against persons with disabilities or other protected characteristics.

Among other concerns, local land use policies and practices can block new group homes from opening, force existing ones to close, and impose costs, legal fees, and administrative burdens that make it difficult for group homes to operate. These concerns arise in the context of a shortage of adequate housing for persons with disabilities, which is a particularly acute problem within California’s broader housing crisis.

With concerns, disputes, and confusion continuing to grow, this Group Home Technical Advisory (Group Home TA) provides guidance on how state planning and zoning and fair housing laws apply when local governments attempt to regulate group homes through land use policies and practices. It is designed to help local governments comply with their obligations under these state laws, including, for example, the Planning and Zoning Law,1 Housing Element Law,2 AFFH provisions,3 Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law,4 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)5 (collectively, state housing laws).

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is issuing the Group Home TA under its authority to provide guidance about housing law and 1 Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.
2 Gov. Code, §§ 65580‐65589.11.
3 See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 8899.50, 65583, subds. (c)(5),(10). 4 Gov. Code, § 65008.
5 Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.
2 policy.6 The primary intended users are local planning agencies and their staff, but group home operators, advocates, and residents may also benefit from this information.

Contents
• Background information about group homes and the essential role they play in providing housing for persons with disabilities (pp. 6-8); • General guidance about overall state housing law standards that (1) require local governments to remove constraints on group homes and affirmatively support them, and (2) prohibit local land use policies and practices that discriminate against group home owners, operators, and residents (pp. 8-23); • Specific guidance about how these standards apply to common issues that arise when local governments attempt to regulate group homes through local land use policies and practices (pp. 23-36);
• Lists of state government resource materials and contacts (pp. 36-37).

Policy Guidance Summary
The Group Home TA’s guidance for how local governments can comply with state housing laws regarding group homes includes the following:
• Housing Element Law and AFFH. Assess whether a policy or practice complies with Housing Element Law and AFFH requirements to avoid constraining housing for persons with disabilities and to affirmatively support this housing and its residents’ fair housing choices (pp. 8-12). Consider the Group Home TA’s examples of specific questions to guide local governments’ analysis of these issues (pp.11-12).
• Discriminatory Purpose or Effect. Ensure that the policy or practice does not discriminate on the basis of disability or other characteristics protected by state law. Apply the Group Home TA’s analysis on how to determine if a policy or practice has a discriminatory purpose or effect and how to implement flexible reasonable accommodation procedures that promptly and efficiently resolve accommodation requests in compliance with state housing laws and regulations. (pp. 12-20).
6 See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, §§ 50152, 50406, subds. (e), (n), 50456, subd. (a), 50459, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (a). The Group Home TA is intended to provide general informational guidance only. It does not constitute legal advice. 3 • Supportive and Transitional Housing. Comply with the specific protections for group homes that fall within the definitions of supportive or transitional housing (pp. 20-22).
• State and Federal Law Distinctions. Confirm that a policy or practice complies with state housing laws even if it complies with federal law, because California law provides broader and different protections than federal law (pp. 22-23). • Definition of Single-Family Residence. Avoid restrictive definitions of single housekeeping units or single-family homes that impermissibly constrain group homes from locating in single-family zones. This includes, for example, avoiding definitions that equate group homes with boardinghouses, require all residents to share a common deed or lease, overly scrutinize residents’ living arrangements, or automatically exclude group homes that are owned by for-profit businesses or pay staff to help manage a home’s operations (pp. 24-25). • Group Homes that Do Not Provide Licensable Services. Allow group homes that operate as single-family residences and that do not provide licensable services to locate in single-family neighborhoods, subject only to the generally applicable, nondiscriminatory health, safety, and zoning laws that apply to all single-family residences (pp. 25-26).
• Group Homes that Provide Licensable Services to Six or Fewer Residents.

Allow group homes that operate as single-family residences and that provide licensable services to six or fewer residents to locate in single-family neighborhoods, subject only to the generally applicable, nondiscriminatory health, safety, and zoning laws that apply to all single-family residences (pp. 25- 26).
• Group Homes that Provide Licensable Services to Seven or More Residents. Ensure that any permitting or approval requirements for group homes that provide licensable services to seven or more residents are consistent with state housing laws (pp. 25-26).
• Preexisting Nonconforming Uses. Avoid retroactively applying a new zoning provision to group homes that were already operating before the provision was enacted (p. 27).
• Spacing Requirements. Avoid requirements for minimum spacing between group homes that go beyond those the Legislature has specified for limited types of licensed facilities and that conflict with state housing laws (pp. 27-29). 4 • Occupancy Limits and Building, Fire, or Other Health and Safety Code Requirements. Apply the same, generally applicable, nondiscriminatory occupancy limits and other building, fire, health, and safety requirements to group homes that apply to other housing, subject to reasonable accommodation requirements or the Legislature’s requirements for specific types of licensed facilities, such as those serving persons with limited mobility (p. 29). • Other Requirements for Group Home Operators and Residents. Avoid the other examples of special requirements for operators and residents discussed that can overly constrain group homes, conflict with the duty to affirmatively support this housing, and discriminate on the basis of disability and other protected characteristics. Examples discussed include, among other things, parking requirements, restrictions on residents or staff, neighborhood notice requirements, and local law enforcement registration requirements (pp. 30-33). • State Administrative Procedures for Investigating Licensing Issues. Use the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) or California Department of Social Services (CDSS) processes for investigating and resolving complaints that unlicensed group homes are providing services that require licenses from these departments (pp. 33-35).
• Public Nuisance and Other Code Enforcement Actions. Use generally applicable, nondiscriminatory laws and code enforcement procedures to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute group home operators that are creating public nuisances; violating building, housing, fire, or other public health and safety codes; committing fraud; or engaging in other unlawful activities (p. 36).

This summary and the Group Home TA are not intended as all-inclusive guides to every issue that might arise when local governments attempt to regulate group homes. But by following the Group Home TA’s framework and considering how it applies to the examples of common issues, local governments can ensure that their land use policies and practices comply with state housing laws.

Conclusion
Local governments that follow the Group Home TA’s guidance can still address concerns about group homeowners or operators that mistreat or abuse their residents, engage in insurance fraud or other illegal practices, or operate their homes in unsafe manners or in ways that create public nuisances. But research has shown that these problems are limited to a small minority of group homes, with the majority of group homes being well managed and operating compatibly with their surrounding neighborhoods, while providing essential housing resources. Focusing on individual 5 group homes that are problematic is more consistent with state law and helps avoid adopting overly broad and constraining zoning regulations for all group homes.

2. TERMS USED
Different laws use the term “group homes” to refer to different types of housing for different populations covered by different regulatory schemes. The following terms refer to various types of residences in which unrelated persons share the residence:
• Shared Living Residences—any housing shared by unrelated persons, including, for example, group homes, recovery residences, some community care residential facilities, some supportive and transitional housing, emergency shelters, boardinghouses, dormitories, etc.
• Group Homes—housing shared by unrelated persons with disabilities that provide peer and other support for their residents’ disability related needs and in which residents share cooking, dining, and living areas, and may, in some group homes, participate in cooking, housekeeping, and other communal living activities.
• Licensed Group Homes—group homes that provide services that require licenses under state law.
• Unlicensed Group Homes—group homes that may provide some supportive services for their residents but not services that require licenses under state law. • Recovery Residences or Sober Living Homes—group homes for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction in which the residents mutually support each other's recovery and sobriety and that do not require licenses from DHCS because they do not provide alcoholism or drug addiction recovery and treatment services.
• Alcohol or Other Drug (AOD) Facilities—residential facilities that must obtain licenses from DHCS because they provide alcoholism or drug addiction recovery and treatment services.
7 7 See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, § 11834.02.
6 • Community Care Residential Facilities—residential facilities that must obtain licenses from CDSS because they provide 24-hour nonmedical care and supervision for adults or children.8

3. BACKGROUND
Among the many reasons that group homes are essential housing for persons with disabilities is the support these homes provide for their residents’ individualized, disability-related needs. This includes the peer support that group homes encourage their residents to provide to each other when sharing a home, as well as the services these homes can provide. These services range from basic support for independent living to more intensive care and supervision services that require state licenses. By providing peer support, services, or both, group homes help their residents live in deinstitutionalized settings and integrate into local communities. For these and other reasons, as the California Legislature has recognized, “‘persons with disabilities . . . are significantly more likely than other persons to live with unrelated persons in group [homes].’”9
Because group homes are such important housing resources for persons with disabilities, state law not only protects them from discriminatory land use policies and practices, it mandates that local governments affirmatively support group homes locating in their communities.10 Federal law also protects group homes, leading courts across the country to conclude that “‘encourag[ing] and support[ing] handicapped persons' right to live in a group home in the community of their choice’” is “‘the public policy of the United States.’”11
The communities of choice for many group homes are often single-family neighborhoods. Recovery residences, for example, often locate in single-family 8 See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, §§ 1502, 1568.01, 1569.2, subds. (o)-(p). 9 Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Ass’n v. Nelson, (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1, 6, quoting Stats. 1993, ch. 1277, § 18; 12 West Cal.Legis.Services, p. 6038. 10 See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 8899.50, 65583, subds. (a)(1), (a)(7), (c)(10). 11 Broadmoor, 25 Cal.App.4th at 9, quoting Rhodes v. Palmetto Pathway Homes, Inc. (South Carolina 1991) 303 S.C. 308, 400 S.E.2d 484, 486. 7 neighborhoods because this helps “‘recovering addicts’ reintegration into society and redevelopment of self-sufficiency.”12
But “for every group home that is successfully established, experts estimate that another closes or never opens because of community opposition.”13 The legislative history of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900 et seq., and federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. section 3601 et seq., show that the Legislature and Congress considered local governments’ longstanding practices of using land use ordinances to exclude group homes when amending these civil rights laws to protect housing for persons with disabilities.14 Local opposition to group homes is often based on fears that they will disrupt neighborhoods, increase crime rates or drug use, generate excessive traffic and parking, or lower property values. But numerous studies, representing decades of research, have found that fears like these are unfounded.15 In fact, studies have shown that group homes are often the best maintained properties on their blocks and function so much like other homes “that most neighbors within one to two blocks . . . do not even know that a group home . . . is nearby.”16
This is not to minimize very real problems that have arisen at some group homes. In particular, some local governments have raised concerns based on problems at some recovery residences operated by unscrupulous owners seeking to maximize their profits 12 Laurie C. Malkin, Troubles at the Doorstep: The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and Group Homes for Recovering Substance Abusers (1995) 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 757, 772-73 & nn. 55-60; Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill (“Cherry Hill”) (D. New Jersey 1992) 799 F.Supp. 450, 453.
13 Malkin, supra, n. 12 at 795 & n. 171.
14 See, e.g., Broadmoor, supra, 25 Cal. App. 4th at 6, quoting Stats.1993, ch. 1277, § 18; 12 West Cal.Legis.Services, p. 6038; H.R. Rep. 100-711, 23-24, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2184-2185. 15 See, e.g., Malkin, supra, n. 12 at 797-798 & nn. 181-184; Council of Planning Librarians, There Goes the Neighborhood - A Summary of Studies Addressing the Most Often Expressed Fears about the Effects Of Group Homes on Neighborhoods in which They Are Placed (Bibliography No. 259) (Apr. 1990); Senate Comm. on Health Analysis of SB 786, Feb. 17, 2017 at 3, 5.
16 Daniel Lauber, A Real LULU: Zoning for Group Homes and Halfway Houses Under The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (Winter 1996) 29 J. Marshall L. Rev. 369, 384-385 & n. 50-52.
8 at the expense of their residents’ wellbeing. These problems have included neglecting and abusing residents, engaging in insurance fraud, and creating public nuisances.17 While these are very real concerns, the examples of exploitive, abusive, and illegal practices appear to be limited to a small minority of recovery residences. 18 Moreover, in
contrast to laws specially designed to address fraud, violations of state licensing laws, or health and safety violations and public nuisances, local land use policies are often too blunt and too broadly sweeping for properly addressing these problems. They risk continuing the history of discrimination against group homes by doing more to constrain and exclude well-functioning ones than they do to abate problems at dysfunctional ones.

Before local governments amend their zoning ordinances to regulate group homes, they should first determine if the proposed amendments will comply with state housing laws.

They should apply the Group Home TA’s framework and consider its examples of common issues that arise when local governments attempt to use land use laws to regulate group homes.

4. FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING IF LOCAL LAND USE POLICIES AND PRACTICES COMPLY WITH STATE HOUSING LAWS’ PROTECTIONS

OF GROUP HOMES
Confirming that local land use policies and practices for group homes comply with state housing laws involves assessing whether they comply with requirements for local governments to affirmatively support this housing in their communities and whether they discriminate on the basis of disability or other protected characteristics. Both assessments are necessary to confirm that a local land use policy or practice complies with state housing laws. Although the Group Home TA discusses Housing Element Law 17 See, e.g., Samantha Schmidt, Drug Rehab ‘Mogul’ Convicted of Sexually Assaulting 7 Female Patients at Treatment Centers, Washington Post, Feb. 27, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/27/drug-rehab-mogulconvicted-of-sexually-assaulting-7-female-patients-at-treatment-centers/; Danielle L.

Liberman, Current Development, Not Too Sunny in the Sunshine State: The Need to Improve Florida’s Opioid Abuse Treatment Centers to Combat the National Public Health Crisis, 31 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 723, 735-738 (2018). 18 See, e.g., Government Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters:

Substance Use Disorder – Information on Recovery Housing Prevalence, Selected States’ Oversight, and Funding (“GAO Report”) (March 2018) at 7-9 & n.18, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-315.pdf; see also studies cited supra, nn. 15-16. 9 and AFFH requirements before fair housing laws, local governments can assess their compliance with these laws in any order.

A. DO THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES COMPLY WITH HOUSING ELEMENT LAW AND AFFH REQUIREMENTS?
California law has long promoted more inclusive communities, such as by requiring local governments to protect and promote housing for persons with special needs, including, among others, lower income households and persons with disabilities or who have experienced homelessness.
19 Housing Element Law requires local governments to
analyze the special housing needs of these populations and develop policies and programs to address those needs.
20 As of January 1, 2019, AB 686 built upon these existing obligations to broadly require all state or local governments involved in programs or activities related to housing or community development to affirmatively further fair housing and take no actions inconsistent with this requirement.
21 The Legislature defined AFFH, to mean:
taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.22
In AB 686, the Legislature also amended Housing Element Law to include new, specific AFFH requirements starting in 2021 for local governments when they prepare and implement housing elements. These requirements include, for example, identifying and addressing fair housing issues; analyzing integration and segregation patterns; 19 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (a)(1), (a)(7); Housing Elements Building Blocks, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housing-elements/building-blocks. 20 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (a)(7), (c). 21 Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(2).
22 Id. at (a)(1).
10 analyzing patterns and trends of disparate housing needs and disproportionate access to housing opportunities; and setting specific goals, adopting responsive policies, and taking effective actions that will affirmatively further fair housing. 23 Taken together, the earlier Housing Element Law provisions and the newer AFFH requirements clarify local governments’ affirmative responsibilities regarding group homes. As the historical record and California and federal legislative histories confirm, local land use laws have too often treated group homes as problems to be avoided or restricted. Local governments’ obligations under state law have been misunderstood as being limited to avoiding discrimination and meeting a minimum threshold for fulfilling the locality’s share of regional housing needs for persons with disabilities.

But local governments must go beyond these basic requirements by actively supporting the inclusion of group homes in their communities and removing constraints on this housing. This includes, for example, supporting the housing choices of individuals with protected characteristics.
24 Persons with disabilities have the right to live in accessible housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, which includes having access to disability-related support and services that individuals need to live in deinstitutionalized settings.
25 Local governments must also avoid policies that
unjustifiably displace group home occupants from their homes.26 HCD has previously issued guidance about local governments’ obligations under older Housing Element Law provisions and the more recently enacted AFFH provisions.

These guidance documents are available through links listed under the Planning and Community Development tab on HCD’s website.
27 Local governments should read the
detailed guidance provided in these documents, which include:
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update),
28 • Housing Element Building Blocks,
29 23 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10).
24 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)(iv); 24 C.F.R § 5.151 (2022). 25 See, e.g., Olmstead v. Zimring (1999) 527 U.S. 581, 602, 607; 24 C.F.R. § 5.151 (2022); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d), (e)(1) (2022).
26 Gov. Code. § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)(v).
27 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/. 28 Available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/AFFH_Document_Final_4-27-2021.pdf. 29 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks. 11 • Housing Element Building Blocks – Persons with Disabilities, 30 and
• Housing Element Building Blocks – Constraints for People with Disabilities. 31 HCD’s earlier guidance documents discuss in more detail how local governments can assess their compliance with Housing Element Law and AFFH requirements. The following types of questions can help local jurisdictions assess if they are meeting their affirmative obligations to protect and promote the housing rights of persons with disabilities:
32 • Has the jurisdiction analyzed the special housing needs of persons with disabilities by including in this analysis, among other things:
o data about the number of persons and households in this group? o quantifiable and qualitative descriptions of their housing needs and descriptions of existing resources or programs for them? o assessments of unmet needs?
• Has the jurisdiction analyzed and explained how it will meet those needs by, among other things:
o identifying potential programs, policy options, and resources? o discussing local resources and service providers?
o identifying housing types that can accommodate persons with disabilities? o developing housing programs or strategies to address identified needs? • Has the jurisdiction analyzed and removed constraints on housing for persons with disabilities by, among other things:
o analyzing potential governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing for persons with disabilities? o examining ordinances, policies, or practices that are unjustifiably having the effect of constraining or excluding housing variety and availability for persons with disabilities?
o providing reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities through programs that remove constraints?
o ensuring that its reasonable accommodation procedures comply with state fair housing laws and regulations?
o in general, demonstrating local efforts to remove constraints? 30 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks/people-disabilities-including-developmental-disabilities. 31 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks/constraints-people-disabilities. 32 See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 8899.50, 65583, subds. (a)(4), (7), (c)(3), (5), (10). 12 • Has the jurisdiction met its AFFH obligations for persons with disabilities by, among other things:
o actively supporting their integration into the local community? o actively supporting their fair housing rights, including their right to choose where to live and to access housing opportunities with services and support for their disabilities?
o considering whether policies and practices are displacing persons with disabilities from their homes?
o examining and redressing segregated living patterns?
o fostering the integration of persons with disabilities into the community? o conducting outreach and education in the community to support the fair housing rights of persons with disabilities?
o identifying and analyzing any policies or practices that have the purpose or effect of discriminating against persons with disabilities, perpetuating their segregation, or impeding their integration?
o examining any justifications for policies or practices with discriminatory effects and identifying and implementing less discriminatory alternatives? • Has the jurisdiction conducted individualized, evidence- and data-based research and analysis, including for:
o any specific benefits that it believes a land use policy or practice regarding group homes will provide to persons with disabilities?
o any specific health or safety issues that a jurisdiction believes justify land use polices or practices regarding group homes?33
B. DO THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES UNLAWFULLY DISCRIMINATE BASED ON DISABILITY OR OTHER PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS?
In addition to the laws requiring local governments to affirmatively support group homes, state fair housing laws prohibit jurisdictions from discriminating against them.34 For example, the Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law, Government Code section 65008, 33 See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 12042, subd. (f), 12179, subd. (b)(3). 34 Fair housing laws protect group homes. See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12005, subd. (o); Lakeside Resort Enterprises, LP v. Board of Sup's of Palmyra Twp. (3d Cir. 2006) 455 F.3d 154, 159–60. See also infra at pp. 22-23 (explaining that while federal fair housing cases can provide important guidance for interpreting state fair housing laws, California’s fair housing and disability rights laws provide broader protections than federal laws).
13 prohibits discriminatory local land use policies and practices and declares any such discriminatory policies or practices null and void.35 This includes discrimination based on any characteristic protected by the FEHA and other state civil rights laws.36 Disability rights protections extend to persons with disabilities, persons regarded or treated as having, or having had, a disability, or persons with a record or history of a disability.
37 Complying with fair housing requirements for individuals with certain types of disabilities, such as individuals with developmental disabilities, will not excuse unlawful discrimination against other individuals with other types of disabilities, such as individuals recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. 38 The Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law also includes protections not specified in the FEHA, such as prohibitions against land use policies and practices that discriminate against housing for “persons or families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income.”39 Therefore, depending on a group home’s intended occupants, jurisdictions must consider whether their policies discriminate against not only persons with disabilities, but, for example, very low- or low income households if the residence is designed for persons with disabilities who have experienced homelessness.

State fair housing laws protect not only group homes’ occupants, but other persons associated with them or other persons who may be harmed by discriminatory land use policies and practices, such as group homes’ operators, owners, and landlords. 40 35 Gov. Code, § 65008, subds. (a), (b)(1). The FEHA similarly prohibits discriminatory land use policies and practices. Gov. Code, § 12955, subd. (l); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 12161, 12162. See also Government Code section 11135 (prohibiting discrimination by recipients of state funding or financial assistance). 36 See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 65008, subds. (a)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B)(i), 65583, subd. (c)(5). 37 Gov. Code, § 12926, subds. (j), (m); 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice – State and Local Land Use Laws and Practices and the Application of the Fair Housing Act (Nov. 10, 2016) at 6 (“HUD – DOJ 2016 Jt. Stmt. on Local Land Use Laws”), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/912366/download. 38 Recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction is a disability protected by fair housing laws. See, e.g., City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 803 (9th Cir.1994), aff'd City of Edmonds v. Oxford House (1995) 514 U.S. 725; Cherry Hill, supra, 799 F.Supp. at 459; HUD – DOJ 2016 Jt. Stmt. on Local Land Use Laws at

6. 39 Gov. Code, § 65008, subds. (a)(3), (b)(1)(C).
40 Gov Code § 65008, subds. (a)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B)(ii), incorporating Gov. Code, § 12955, subd. (m).
14 Identifying and correcting discriminatory land use policies and practices requires understanding three general types of discrimination:

1. intentional discrimination,

2. discriminatory effects, and

3. failure to provide reasonable accommodations.
41 i. INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
Intentional discrimination includes “an act or failure to act” in which any protected characteristic “is a motivating factor . . . even though other factors may have also motivated the practice.”42 Unlike employment discrimination law, in which plaintiffs must prove that a defendant’s action or inaction was substantially motivated by a discriminatory purpose, under fair housing law, a “housing practice” can be found illegal if it “demonstrates an intent to discriminate in any manner.”43 Intentional discrimination is best understood as purposeful discrimination because it “does not require proof of personal prejudice or animus.”44 Even if local officials are not hostile towards persons with disabilities or act with benign intents to help them, a discriminatory policy or practice can still be unlawful. It is also unlawful for government officials to acquiesce to members of the public’s prejudicial views even if the officials themselves do not share those views.
45 Establishing intentional discrimination often involves evidence that persons with protected characteristics were treated worse than others without those characteristics.

But this is only one way to prove discrimination.46 Intentional discrimination does not require “the existence of a similarly situated entity who or which was treated better . . . .”47 A local land use policy or practice that “inflicts collateral damage by harming some, or even all, individuals from a favored group in order to successfully 41 Although these are some of the most common, general types of discrimination issues that arise with local land use policies and practices, this is not an exhaustive list. See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 12161-62 (listing more detailed examples). 42 Gov. Code, § 12955.8; Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 217- 218; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12041, subd. (b).
43 Gov. Code, § 12955.8.
44 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12041, subd. (b). 45 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12161, subd. (c). 46 Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 1142, 1158-1159.
47 Id. at 1158.
15 harm members of a disfavored class does not cleanse the taint of discrimination.”48 Sometimes it “simply underscores the depth of the defendant’s” discriminatory intent.49 Intentional discrimination can be established through facial discrimination, direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence.

FACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Facially discriminatory laws or policies explicitly regulate housing or take an adverse action based on a protected characteristic.50 Local governments can engage in facial discrimination even when a law or policy does not expressly refer to, for example, group homes or persons with disabilities. “Proxy discrimination is a form of facial discrimination” in which a jurisdiction:
enacts a law or policy that treats individuals differently on the basis of seemingly neutral criteria that are so closely associated with the disfavored group that discrimination on the basis of such criteria is, constructively, facial discrimination against the disfavored group. For example, discriminating against individuals with gray hair is a proxy for age discrimination because the fit between age and gray hair is sufficiently close.
51 To avoid liability for a law or policy that facially discriminates against persons with disabilities, a local government must show that the policy:
(1) either (a) actually benefits persons with disabilities or (b) is justified by individualized safety concerns raised by the persons the policy affects, and (2) is “the least restrictive means of achieving” one or both of these goals.52 48 Id. at 1159.
49 Id. See also id. at 1158 – 1162 & n. 23.
50 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12040, subd. (c).
51 Pacific Shores Properties, 730 F.3d at 1160 n. 23, internal quotations and citations omitted.
52 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 12042, subd. (f), 12161, subd. (d); Larkin v. State of Mich.

Dept. of Social Services (6th Cir. 1996) 89 F.3d 285, 290. 16 These justifications for facial discrimination are “extremely narrow exception[s],” and jurisdictions should be wary of relying on them.
53 Jurisdictions must support them with
at least, if not more than, the specific and thorough analysis and evidence required by Housing Element Law, including its AFFH provisions. Generalized concerns or ones based on stereotypes will not suffice.
54 Jurisdictions should also consider less
discriminatory alternatives.
55 And in light of jurisdictions’ obligations to “protect existing residents from displacement” and otherwise affirmatively further fair housing, laws or policies that displace group home occupants from their current, chosen residences warrant especially thorough scrutiny.56

DIRECT EVIDENCE
Direct evidence includes written or oral statements showing in themselves that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in a local jurisdiction’s decision. Direct evidence can itself establish a violation. The affirmative defenses for facial discrimination claims do not apply to direct evidence claims.57

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Even when policies or statements in themselves do not establish a discriminatory intent, local land use policies and practices can still be found discriminatory based on circumstantial evidence, which can include: (1) the policy’s or practice’s impact, (2) its historical background, (3) the more recent, specific sequence of events leading up to it, (4) departures from usual procedures, (5) departures from usual substantive standards, and (6) the legislative or administrative history.
58 53 Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977) 433 U.S. 321, 334; Bangerter v. Orem City Corp. (10th Cir. 1995) 46 F.3d 1491, 1504; see also Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 31 nn. 7, 8 (explaining that public policy exceptions to Unruh Act’s prohibitions of discrimination are “rare” and “should be carefully and narrowly construed”). 54 Larkin, 89 F.3d at 291-292 (rigorously examining and rejecting an agency’s justifications and evidence for spacing and community notice requirements for group homes in holding that they violate the FHA).
55 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12042, subd. (f).
56 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (c)(10)(A)(iv), (v). 57 See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12042, subds. (c)-(e). 58 HUD – DOJ 2016 Jt. Stmt. on Local Land Use Laws at 4, citing Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. (1977) 429 U.S. 252, 265-68. 17 These factors are not the only ones that may be considered.59 And “very little evidence” is needed to “raise a genuine issue” of a discriminatory intent.60 Procedural or substantive departures from AFFH or housing element requirements when regulating group homes would be relevant evidence to consider in assessing if local officials acted for discriminatory purposes.
ii. DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS
Even if a local government has not acted with a discriminatory purpose, its land use policies or practices can be found unlawful if they have an unjustified discriminatory effect. A discriminatory effect is generally established through statistical evidence showing that a policy or practice actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of persons with protected characteristics or that it perpetuates segregation. 61 If a local land use practice is found to have a discriminatory effect, a jurisdiction can avoid liability if it shows there is a legally sufficient justification for its policy or practice.62 A jurisdiction must establish each of the following:
(1) The practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory purposes;
(2) The practice effectively carries out the identified purpose; (3) The identified purpose is sufficiently compelling to override the discriminatory effect; and
(4) There is no feasible alternative practice that would equally or better accomplish the identified purpose with a less discriminatory effect.63 Generalized or hypothetical analysis of these elements will not suffice. They must be “supported by evidence.”64
To comply with Housing Element Law, including its AFFH provisions, a jurisdiction should not wait for group home occupants or operators to bring discriminatory effects claims but should research on its own whether its policies or practices have discriminatory effects on these residences. If so, the jurisdiction should also complete 59 Pacific Shores Properties, 730 F.3d at 1159.
60 Id.; Gov. Code, § 12955.8; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12041, subd. (b). 61 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12060, subd. (b).
62 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12062, subd. (b).
63 Id.
64 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12062, subd. (c).
18 the evidence-based analysis needed to determine whether there are legally sufficient justifications for these discriminatory policies or practices, including analyzing less discriminatory alternatives.
iii. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
Discrimination can also arise from a jurisdiction failing “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when these accommodations may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”65 A request for a reasonable accommodation may only be denied if:
(1) The individual on whose behalf the accommodation was requested is not an individual with a disability;
(2) There is no disability-related need for the requested accommodation (in other words, there is no [connection] between the disability and the requested accommodation);
(3) The requested accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration of the services or operations of the person who is asked to provide the accommodation.
(4) The requested accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the person who is asked to provide the accommodation; or
(5) The requested accommodation would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of others (i.e., a significant risk of bodily harm) or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others, and such risks cannot be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation . . . .66
Three common issues, among others, can arise when group home operators or occupants request reasonable accommodations in local land use policies and practices:

1. While a jurisdiction should adopt a formal reasonable accommodations process so that, among other reasons, the public knows how to request accommodations, these processes should be flexible enough to promptly and efficiently resolve accommodations requests without creating 65 Gov. Code, § 12927, subd. (c)(1).
66 Cal Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12179.
19 unnecessary procedural barriers.67 These processes should allow group home operators to request reasonable accommodations “at any time . . . while seeking or enjoying a housing opportunity,” including, for example, when: (1) considering whether to buy or lease a home; (2) filing a permit application, or (3) responding to allegations they have violated a zoning code or other ordinance.68 If local governments are repeatedly denying accommodation requests or delaying resolving them, they should analyze whether this is due to the requestors failing to provide sufficient information and support or to procedures erecting impermissible barriers to accommodations.69

2. “‘[I]n most cases, an individual’s medical records or detailed information about the nature of a person’s disability is not necessary’” to establish that a person has a disability or that this disability requires a reasonable accommodation in a land use policy or practice.
70 A reliable third party with
knowledge of a person’s disabilities can usually provide sufficient information for assessing a request for an accommodation in a local land use policy or practice.71 For example, it is well established that persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction have disabilities and that recovery residences support their recoveries. Thus, information provided by a recovery residence operator, such as its occupancy or other policies, for example, should generally suffice to establish its occupants have disabilities and the justifications for the 67 See, e.g., id. at §§ 12176, subd. (c), 12178.
68 See, e.g., id. at § 12176, subd. (f).
69 See, e.g., id. at § 12177; see also these examples of reasonable accommodation ordinances: Oakland Mun. Code, ch. 17.131, available at https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/planning_code?nodeId=TIT17PL_CH17 .131REACPOPR; Model Ordinance for Providing Reasonable Accommodation Under Federal and State Fair Housing Laws (“Model Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance”), Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc. (September 2003), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/programrequirements/address-remove-mitigateconstraints/docs/model_reasonable_accomodation_ordinance.pdf. 70 Supplement to Initial Statement of Reasons for FEHC’s Fair Housing Regulations at 26, quoting HUD DOJ May 17, 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, available at https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/32/2019/07/FairHousingRegSupplementInitialStatementReasons.pdf. 71 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12178. 20 requested accommodations, allowing local officials to assess the request without probing into the occupants’ private medical records or histories.72

3. Denials of reasonable accommodation requests must be based on individualized assessments, and specific evidence, not generalized or speculative concerns about group homes or persons with disabilities. The state’s fair housing regulations provide specific guidance about the type of evidence required to meet this standard.73

5. SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

REQUIREMENTS
If a group home operates in ways that fall within the statutory definitions of supportive housing or transitional housing, jurisdictions must also comply with Housing Element Law’s specific protections of these types of housing. This section summarizes these protections, which are explained more fully in other HCD guidance documents, including:
• Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory (Sep. 15, 2020),74 • Housing Element Building Blocks – Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types, 75 • Senate Bill 2 – Legislation Effective January 1, 2008: Local Planning and Approval for Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing (Apr. 10, 2013 update),76 and
• Transitional and Supportive Housing, Chapter 183, Statutes of 2013 (SB 745) (Apr. 24, 2014).
77 72 Id; Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown (2d Cir. 2002) 294 F.3d 35, 47-48 & n.3, superseded on other grounds as stated in Brooker v.

Altoona Housing Authority (W.D. Penn 2013) 2013 WL 2896814 at *9 n. 8. 73 Cal. Code Regs., tit 2, § 12179.
74 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf. 75 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks/zoning-variety-of-housing-types. 76 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/sb-2-combined-update-mc-a11y.pdf. 77 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/sb745memo042414.pdf. 21 Supportive Housing Definition. Government Code section 65582, subdivision (g), defines supportive housing to mean housing that:
• has no limit on the length of stay;
• is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents in improving their health status, retaining the housing, and maximizing their ability to live and, where possible, work in the community; and
• is occupied by the “target population,” which “means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act . . . and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans and homeless people.”78
Transitional Housing Definition. Government Code section 65582, subdivision (j), defines “transitional housing” to mean “buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance.” Therefore, in contrast to supportive housing, transitional housing may limit the length of stay, is not required to provide supportive services (though may be linked to them), and is not limited to residents within the “target population.”
Key Protections for Supportive and Transitional Housing. If a group home operates in ways that qualify it as either supportive or transitional housing, jurisdictions must comply with Housing Element Law’s additional protections for these types of housing.

This includes the requirement that supportive and transitional housing “shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.”79 In other words, transitional housing and supportive housing are permitted in all zones allowing residential uses and are not subject to any restrictions (e.g., occupancy limit) not imposed on similar dwellings (e.g., single-family home, apartments) in the 78 Gov. Code, § 65582, subd. (i).
79 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3), emphasis added.
22 same zone in which the transitional housing and supportive housing is located. For example, transitional housing located in an apartment building in a multifamily zone is permitted in the same manner as an apartment building in the same zone, and supportive housing located in a single-family home in a single-family zone is permitted in the same manner as a single-family home in the same zone.

In addition, if supportive housing meets the specifications of Government Code section 65650 et seq, it must be treated as “a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted . . . .”80 By-right approval means that the use cannot require a conditional use permit or other discretionary review, even if a permit is required for other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.81 This nondiscretionary (i.e., ministerial) approval requirement renders the proposed use statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act if the project “complies with written, objective development standards and policies.”82 When supportive or transitional housing does require a permit of any type, the Housing Accountability Act limits jurisdictions’ authority to deny the permit.

These limits are discussed at length in HCD’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory (Sep. 15, 2020).83

6. STATE LAW PROVIDES BROADER PROTECTIONS THAN FEDERAL
LAW
The Legislature has specified that the FEHA may be interpreted broadly to provide “greater rights and remedies” than federal laws.84 The Legislature has also emphasized that “[t]he law of this state in the area of disability provides protections independent from those in [federal law],” noting that California law “has always, even prior to passage of the federal [ADA], afforded additional protections.”85
Examples of California providing “greater rights and remedies” than federal law include, among other things, state law’s broader definitions of disabilities (e.g., only requiring a mere limitation of a major life activity for a mental or physical condition to qualify as a 80 Id.
81 Id.
82 Gov. Code, § 65651, subd. (b)(2); Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1); Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15002, subds. (i)(1), 15268(a). 83 See supra, n. 74.
84 Gov. Code, §§ 12955.6, 12993.
85 Gov. Code, § 12926.1, subd. (a).
23 disability compared to federal law requiring a substantial limitation); prohibition of land use policies and practices that discriminate against housing designed for persons or families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income; requirements for how local governments must affirmatively support housing for persons with disabilities; specific requirements for supportive and transitional housing; and reasonable accommodations regulations.
86 Therefore, federal laws set a floor, not a ceiling, for the fair housing rights that the state may provide through the FEHA, Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law, and other state laws.87 Likewise, although federal court decisions about federal fair housing laws can provide important guidance for interpreting state fair housing laws, their interpretations of state laws are not binding authority.88 Confusion can arise if local governments assume that resolving whether a local land use policy or practice complies with federal law automatically resolves whether it complies with state law.

To avoid this confusion, local governments should follow these two general guidelines:
• If a policy or practice violates federal fair housing law, it also likely violates state law.
• But the converse is not necessarily true. If a policy or practice complies with federal fair housing laws, local governments should independently determine whether it complies with state law’s broader protections.

7. COMMON ISSUES IN LOCAL ORDINANCES THAT REGULATE

GROUP HOMES
HCD cannot anticipate all the issues that might arise if local governments attempt to regulate group homes through local land use laws. But the following are examples of some common ones that can arise.
86 See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 12926.1; 65008, subds. (a), (b); 65583, subds. (a), (c); Cal.

Code Regs., §§ 12176-12185.
87 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 12926.1, subd. (a); California Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n v.

Guerra (1987) 479 U.S. 272, 285; 42 U.S.C. § 3615.
88 See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs, tit. 2, § 11001, subd. (b). 24 A. DEFINITIONS OF SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNITS OR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
Zoning ordinances sometimes attempt to restrict or limit group homes in single-family residential zones (e.g., R-1) through definitions of single housekeeping units or singlefamily homes. Overly restrictive definitions risk violating not only state housing laws, but the California Constitution’s protections of the rights of unrelated persons to live together in communal housing.89
Persons with disabilities choose to live in group homes because these homes provide peer and other support for their residents’ disability-related needs, while helping to integrate residents into their communities. Group homes should be treated as singlehousekeeping units if they are designed to foster these mutually supportive peer relationships; allow open-ended stays or at least, on average, stays of more than a few weeks; and provide shared kitchen, dining, living, and other spaces in which residents may, in certain homes, participate in basic, shared cooking and housekeeping activities.

In general, localities should avoid including provisions in definitions of sharedhousekeeping units, single-family homes, or other single residential dwellings that:
• Equate group homes with boardinghouses. Group homes’ shared communal purposes to provide peer and other support for their occupants’ disability-related needs and to help integrate them into their local communities makes this an inapt comparison. Boardinghouses do not provide communal housing designed to support the needs of persons with disabilities.
• Require all residents to share a common deed or lease. The California Constitution’s protections of personal privacy extend to individuals’ choices to live together even when they are not joint owners or tenants.90 And group homes can still provide a communal setting that supports their residents’ needs without all residents being joint owners or tenants.
• Automatically exclude group homes that are owned by for-profit businesses or that pay a house manager or resident to help manage a 89 See, e.g., City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123. 90 See, e.g., Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 451, 458-459.
25 home’s operations. These are well-established models for group homes. 91 And
persons with certain types of disabilities may need supportive, in-house staff to be able to live in a group home.
• Overly scrutinize living arrangements by, for example, requiring residents to take care of all housekeeping tasks, share all bathrooms and refrigerators, and eat all meals together, or by prohibiting locks on bedroom doors. Localities do not impose such conditions on families of related persons, who may live in R-1 neighborhoods even if they can afford to hire housekeepers or gardeners, do not share all bathrooms, decline or lack the time to eat all meals together, or choose to install locks on parents’, teenagers’, or other relatives’ bedroom doors. And different types of group homes may require different living arrangements and provide different levels of housekeeping or other services based on their residents’ individualized needs or other considerations.

B. REQUIREMENTS THAT ALL GROUP HOMES WITH MORE THAN SIX

RESIDENTS MUST OBTAIN PERMITS TO LOCATE IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES
Some local zoning ordinances require all group homes with more than six residents to apply for conditional use permits or obtain other special approvals to locate in singlefamily zones. These ordinances appear to be based on Health and Safety Code statutes that require local governments to treat many types of licensed group homes with six or fewer residents the same as single-family homes and prohibit requiring these small, licensed group homes to obtain conditional use permits or other special approvals to locate in single-family zones.92
But local policies that require all group homes with more than six residents to obtain conditional use or other permits inappropriately turn state laws designed to remove constraints on small, licensed group homes into constraints on the many other group homes that do not require state licenses.
91 Douglas L. Plocin and Diane Henderson, A Clean and Sober Place to Live:

Philosophy, Structure, and Purported Therapeutic Factors in Sober Living Homes, 40 J Psychoactive Drugs (2008), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556949/ (discussing how a “‘strong manager’ model of operations” can function in ways that provide the same or similar benefits of a communal environment and peer support as group homes that residents own and operate themselves). 92 See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, §§ 1566.3, 1569.85,11834.23. 26 To comply with the Health and Safety Code’s exemptions for small, licensed group homes and with housing element, AFFH, and fair housing requirements to remove constraints on and prevent discrimination against group homes, local governments should follow these guidelines:
• Group homes that operate as single-family residences and that do not provide licensable services should be allowed in single-family neighborhoods, subject only to the generally applicable, nondiscriminatory health, safety, and zoning laws that apply to all single-family residences.

This is true even if these homes have more than six residents. Because these homes are not providing licensable services, they should be treated the same as other residences.
93 • Group homes that operate as single-family residences and that provide licensable services to six or fewer residents should be allowed in singlefamily neighborhoods, subject only to the generally applicable, nondiscriminatory health, safety, and zoning laws that apply to all singlefamily residences. This complies with, among other things, the Health and Safety Code protections for these smaller, licensed group homes. • Group homes operating as single-family residences that provide licensable services to more than six residents may be subject to conditional use or other discretionary approval processes. Local governments must still provide flexible and efficient reasonable accommodations in these permitting processes.

This means that some requests for exceptions to permitting processes should be resolved through reasonable accommodation procedures instead of conditional use procedures.94 In addition, any substantive requirements for these group homes must still comply with the local government’s obligations to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, affirmatively support it, and prevent discrimination against it. The next sections provide further guidance on how to meet these obligations.95
93 See also supra at pp. 20-22 (discussing specific protections for supportive and transitional housing).
94 See, e.g., Letter from Attorney General Bill Lockyer to The Hon. William Hartz, Mayor of Adelanto (May 15, 2001) (explaining that relying on conditional use procedures to address reasonable accommodation requests can lead to fair housing violations). 95 Although the Group Home TA focuses on group homes operating as single-family residences, the same principles apply to those operating, for example, as multifamily residences in multifamily zones.
27 C. RETROACTIVE COMPLIANCE
Zoning codes typically allow uses that began lawfully before a new zoning provision was adopted or amended to continue after these new requirements are imposed, with the concept of legal nonconforming existing uses found in almost all zoning codes. For example, a local government may change zoning requirements to disallow auto repair uses in the downtown area. An existing auto repair shop would continue to be allowed to continue to operate because at the time when the use began it was an allowable use.96
Local governments should generally treat existing group homes similarly when amending their zoning codes. Retroactive application of new zoning provisions should be avoided, especially if it will displace persons with disabilities from the homes they have chosen. Any exception to the well-established practice of allowing legal nonconforming uses to continue should be supported by substantial analysis and evidence showing that it is required to protect public health, safety, and welfare. This analysis and evidence should include specific local data and evidence, not merely anecdotal reports about problems that have arisen at some group homes or generalized descriptions of the public health, safety, and welfare interests that the new amendments are designed to serve.

D. SPACING REQUIREMENTS
Spacing requirements restrict group homes from locating within a specific distance of other group homes. Local governments should be very wary about imposing spacing requirements that extend beyond the limited requirements the Legislature has deemed necessary to prevent the overconcentration of certain licensed facilities to ensure their residents are integrated into their communities.

The Legislature has found spacing requirements justified only for specific types of licensed facilities. Community care facilities, intermediate care facilities serving persons with developmental disabilities who require intermittent but recurring skilled nursing care, and pediatric day health and respite care facilities that provide services to children with particularly acute or chronic healthcare needs and their parents or guardians must be separated by at least 300 feet. Congregate living health facilities serving persons with terminal or life-threatening illnesses or with catastrophic or severe disabilities 96 See, e.g., Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 552; Edmonds v. Los Angeles County (1953) 40 Cal.2d 642, 651. 28 acquired through trauma or nondegenerative neurologic illness must be separated by at least 1,000 feet.97
Further limiting these spacing requirements, the Legislature has specified that they:
• apply to some types of licensed facilities, but not to others. For example, the spacing requirements apply only to some types of intermediate care facilities but not to AOD facilities or to residential care facilities for the elderly; • apply to proposed, new facilities, not existing ones; • only require separation of facilities with similar licenses; and • allow closer spacing based on local needs and conditions.98 Contrary to these carefully crafted limitations on spacing requirements, some local governments have imposed spacing requirements on recovery residences, including those already in operation. These spacing requirements are very unlikely to withstand scrutiny under state housing laws. Among other things:
• They are at odds with the Legislature’s narrowly crafted spacing requirements in section 1267.9.
• They can conflict with local governments’ obligations to, for example, remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, affirmatively support such housing, avoid policies that displace persons with protected characteristics, and affirmatively support their right to live where they choose.99
• They are very hard to justify based on the narrow exceptions that state fair housing laws allow for facial discrimination. Justifications based on the goal of avoiding overconcentration are difficult to establish and require substantial and detailed statistical evidence establishing that an overconcentration of recovery residences has reached the point where it is, for example, creating an institutionalized living environment or perpetuating segregation within specific 97 Health & Saf. Code, §§ 1267.9, subd. (b) (setting spacing requirements for these types of community care residential facilities), 1502 (defining facilities that are subject to 300-foot spacing requirements), 1250 (defining facilities subject to 1000-foot spacing requirements).
98 Health & Saf. Code, § 1267.9.
99 See, supra, at pp. 9-12.
29 neighborhoods or communities. Merely comparing the number of recovery residences in one city with the number in others generally will not suffice.100 • They can lack the flexibility required to reasonably accommodate recovery residences and their occupants’ disability-related needs. • The Legislature has repeatedly rejected attempts to impose spacing requirements on recovery residences. As recently as 2018, for instance, the Legislature declined to adopt SB 786, a bill that would have imposed a 300-foot spacing requirement on recovery residences.
101 The legislative history shows
that the Legislature considered the lack of clear data showing that this spacing requirement would benefit persons recovering from alcohol and drug addiction.

The Legislature also considered concerns that this spacing requirement would discriminate on the basis of disability, impede opening new recovery residences, reduce access to much needed recovery and treatment services, and stigmatize recovery residences and their occupants.102
In sum, local governments should avoid imposing spacing requirements that extend beyond those specified in Health and Safety Code section 1267.9.103 100 See, supra, at pp. 15-16. Spacing requirements like this also need to withstand scrutiny under other standards for assessing intentional discrimination or discriminatory effects. See, supra, at pp. 12-19.
101 Sen Bill No. 786 (2017-2018 Reg. Session). This bill is one of many times that the Legislature has declined to enact, or the Governor has vetoed bills attempting to regulate recovery residences. See, e.g., Sen. Com. on Health, analysis of Sen. Bill 786 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) at 7-8 (listing several other bills with similar provisions that the died in the Legislature between 2006 and 2007); California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation (October 2016) at 14-16 (listing over 20 bills affecting recovery residences introduced between 1998 and 2016 that the Legislature did not pass or the Governor vetoed). 102 Sen. Com. on Health Analysis of Sen. Bill 786 at 6, 8-9. 103 Recent federal court decisions rejecting challenges under federal and California laws to spacing requirements for recovery residences have not considered the important differences between state and federal laws. See, e.g., Yellowstone Women’s First Step House, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8. 2015) 2015 WL 13764131 at *7-8, affirmed in part and vacated in part, 2021 WL 4077001 (9th Cir. Sep. 8, 2021) (unpublished, nonprecedential decision). These differences include, for example, the affirmative duties that California’s Housing Element Law imposes on local governments and the broader rights and remedies for persons with disabilities under California’s fair housing laws. See, supra, at pp. 22-23.
30 E. OCCUPANCY LIMITS AND BUILDING, FIRE, OR OTHER HEALTH AND

SAFETY CODE REQUIREMENTS
Subject to the Legislature’s requirements for specific types of licensed facilities, such as those serving persons with limited mobility, and to requests for reasonable accommodations, local governments should apply the same generally applicable occupancy limits to group homes that they do to other housing. Under the Uniform Housing Code section 503.2, at least one room in a dwelling unit must have a floor area of at least 120 square feet, with other habitable rooms, except kitchens, required to have a floor area of at least 70 feet. When more than two people occupy a room for sleeping purposes, the required floor area increases by 50 square feet. For example, a bedroom intended for two people could be as small as 70 square feet, while a bedroom would need to be at least 120 square feet to accommodate three people or at least 170 square feet to accommodate four people.

Likewise, to avoid imposing overly costly and burdensome constraints on group homes, the best practice is to apply the same general building, fire, and other health and safety codes that apply to other residences, subject to state health and safety code provisions specific to certain types of residential facilities.104 Although group home operators may request reasonable accommodations from public health and safety standards, fair housing laws allow local governments to deny these requests if, among other things, they would cause direct threats to public health and safety.

F. REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATORS AND RESIDENTS
Requirements for operators and residents often take the form of specific services or management practices that the local jurisdiction feels are necessary for the successful operation of group homes. These requirements tend to deal with the internal affairs of the operations and frequently involve issues beyond those in typical land use regulations. For example, local jurisdictions do not typically regulate the number of daily visitors to a single-family home or other residential property.

When applied to group homes, these types of regulations raise concerns that a local government is imposing conditions on them that are contrary to its duties to support housing for persons with disabilities, prevent discrimination on the basis of disability or other protected characteristics, and provide reasonable accommodations. 104 See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, § 13113 (requiring sprinkler systems in certain licensed residential facilities).
31 Before adopting or applying any such regulations even for licensed group homes, local governments should analyze whether they are consistent with state housing laws and document this analysis. Local governments should also consider whether such regulations are consistent with the Health and Safety Code’s provisions and regulations for licensed facilities.

Although this Group Home TA cannot address all potential issues regarding potential regulations of operators and residents, the following are examples of requirements taken from recent local ordinances:

Imposing Special Parking Requirements on Group Homes. Requiring group homes to have or construct additional off-street parking spaces can impose considerable costs that constrain housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. These special parking requirements will often conflict with the right to privacy under the California Constitution,105 as well as local governments’ obligations to affirmatively support housing for persons with disabilities and avoid discriminating against them. Jurisdictions imposing additional parking requirements assume that group homes serving adults will have more residents who drive and will therefore use more on-street parking than other households. But these assumptions should at the very least be tested by studying the actual causes and extent of on-street parking shortages in an area.106 Local governments should also consider less discriminatory alternatives, such as streetparking permit systems for all households or other generally applicable parking and vehicle regulations.

Restricting Recovery Residence Occupants to Persons Actively Participating in Recovery Programs. While most occupants of recovery residences participate in recovery programs, local governments should not impose this as a condition of living in a recovery residence. There are different models of recovery, not all of which involve participating in 12-step or similar programs. And recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction is legally recognized as a protected disability regardless of whether someone has participated or is currently participating in a recovery or treatment program.107 105 Adamson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 133 (concluding that parking concerns are best addressed by limitations that “appl[y] evenly to all households” and concluding that zoning ordinances are suspect when they focus on users instead of uses). 106 See, e.g., Lauber, supra, n. 16 at 385 & n. 52 (citing studies finding that group homes do not generate undue amounts of parking or traffic). 107 Hernandez v. Hughes Missile System Co. (9th Cir. 2004) 362 F.3d 564, 568; HUD – DOJ 2016 Jt. Stmt. on Local Land Use Laws at 7-8.
32 Restricting Occupancy Exclusively to Persons with Disabilities. Regulations restricting group home occupancy exclusively to persons with disabilities or with a specific disability may sometimes intrude on individuals’ fair housing choices and privacy rights. They also risk discriminating on the basis of other protected statuses.

Inflexible occupancy restrictions, for example, could preclude group homes designed for families in which one member has a disability or recovery residences designed for parents in recovery who are seeking to reunite with their children.

Restricting Occupants or Staff from Homes Based on Their Criminal History Records. Policies that prohibit individuals from living in or working at group homes based on individuals’ criminal history records may be intended to protect the occupants of these homes. But local governments contemplating adopting or applying such policies should carefully review California Code of Regulations, title 2, sections 11017.1; 12162, subdivision (b); and 12264-12271, which set parameters on using criminal history information that, among other things, restrict access to employment or housing.

Local governments should also consider state laws and regulations that apply to criminal background checks for licensed facilities’ employees. 108
Requiring Recovery Residences or AOD Facilities to Immediately Remove Occupants Who Violate Policies Prohibiting Alcohol or Drug Use. Although Health and Safety Code section 11834.26, subdivision (d), requires AOD facilities to plan how to address a resident’s relapse, that subdivision clarifies that this “does not require a licensee to discharge a resident.” This recognizes that approaches to addressing someone’s relapse may vary depending on a recovery residence’s or AOD facility’s program, the circumstances of the relapse, and an individual’s personal history and needs. Local policies should allow the same flexibility. Moreover, requirements to immediately remove relapsing residents with tenancy rights may conflict with landlordtenant laws.

Other Examples
• House Manager Requirements—requiring group homes to have a house manager on site around the clock or always available to come to the residence within 30 or 45 minutes.
• Visitor Restrictions—requiring group homes to limit who can visit and under what conditions.
108 See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code §§ 1522, 1569.17, 11834.27; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, §§ 10564, 10615, 10624, tit. 22, §§ 80019-19.2.
33 • Records Maintenance—requiring group homes to maintain specific records about the internal affairs or occupants of the house.
• Codes of Conduct—requiring group homes to have special conduct codes for their residents.
• Neighborhood Notice Requirements—imposing special neighborhood notice requirements on group homes.
• Law Enforcement Registration Requirements—requiring group homes to register with the local sheriff’s office or other law enforcement offices.

Regulations like these can be based on mistaken or prejudicial fears about group homes, instead of actual data and evidence. Particularly in light of research finding that fears about group homes endangering neighbors’ health and safety are unfounded, 109 such provisions may in themselves be regarded as evidence that a local government is not complying with its requirements to affirmatively support housing for persons with disabilities and prevent discrimination against group homeowners, operators, and residents.

Regulations like these can also create unnecessary constraints on group homes by imposing overbroad, additional costs and burdens on the many group homes that capably serve their occupants’ needs and seamlessly integrate into their communities.

They can intrude on privacy rights. They can discriminate on the basis of disability or other protected characteristics if, for example, requirements like these are imposed on group homes but not on other housing. For these reasons, among others, regulations like these generally conflict with state housing laws.

G. Civil Actions for Operating Without a Required State License Some categories of group homes, such as all those serving children, require state licenses. But many, if not most, group homes do not require state licenses to operate.

These include, for example, group homes that provide peer support and limited services to residents but not the more extensive care and supervision that requires obtaining a license. Recovery residences that do not provide alcoholism or drug addiction recovery or treatment services are other examples of group homes that do not require licenses.

Examples of group homes that do require licenses include the ones in this table:
109 See, supra, nn. 15-16.
34 Use Health and Safety Code
Sections
Licensing Agency
Community Care
Residential Facilities
(including various
subcategories)
§ 1500 et seq. &
§ 1569 et seq., e.g.,
California Department of
Social Services (CDSS)
AOD Facilities § 11834.01 et seq. California Department of Health Care Services
(DHCS)
Some local governments have amended their zoning ordinances to declare that operating a business without a required state license is a public nuisance. Some of these ordinances single out recovery residences that are providing recovery or treatment services without a license. These jurisdictions file civil actions seeking to abate these nuisances by closing some noncompliant recovery residences, requiring others to obtain the required license, or imposing limitations on recovery residences that were not providing recovery or treatment services.

Local governments have discretion to define as public nuisances’ business or construction activities that are undertaken without a required permit or license. And at least one California appellate court has upheld a city’s public nuisance action against a recovery residence where the owners’ own website advertised that they provided onsite drug addiction treatment services.110 But jurisdictions considering adopting this practice should still carefully assess the issues and problems that can arise under state law. Guidelines for local governments considering this include the following:
• Avoid targeting these nuisance actions on group homes operating without required licenses while ignoring other businesses operating in residences without required licenses. Although public prosecutors have broad discretion to prioritize which violations or violators to prosecute, they cannot use this discretion in ways that discriminate on the basis of disability or other protected characteristics. Jurisdictions should not single out group homes unlawfully operating without required licenses while ignoring businesses doing the same thing in other residences.
110 City of Dana Point v. New Method Wellness, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 985. 35 • Give group homes the same opportunities to respond to and resolve alleged code violations as other alleged violators. For example, if other property owners or businesses are allowed to respond to and resolve alleged code violations during investigations or administrative hearings, those same procedures should apply to group homes that are allegedly providing services that require a license without having obtained one.
• Use the processes available through DHCS and CDSS, for example, for resolving allegations that a group home is operating without a required license. If a locality has evidence that a residence is providing unlicensed recovery or treatment services in facilities under DHCS’s jurisdiction or unlicensed care or supervision for residents in facilities under CDSS’s jurisdiction, it should use these departments’ processes for investigating such complaints and abating them if they have merit.111 This is especially important when group home operators have not openly admitted that they are providing unlicensed services on-site.

Determining what activities at a group home rise to the level of licensable services, in contrast to common policies or mutual support activities that do not require licenses, can involve nuanced and technical issues that are beyond the expertise of most local planning or code enforcement staff. DHCS’s and CDSS’s staff have the expertise and experience to investigate these claims, make these determinations, and abate violations of the licensing laws they enforce.

If jurisdictions are filing their own, more costly civil actions to resolve disputes over whether a group home requires a license, this runs the risk of courts issuing mistaken rulings without the benefit of DHCS’s or CDSS’s findings and expertise.112 It also raises questions under state housing laws about why a local government is not availing itself of DHCS’s or CDSS’s procedures and opting instead to subject a group home to more expensive and burdensome civil litigation.
111 See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, § 10542, tit. 22, § 80006. 112 Cf. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 390 (explaining that under primary jurisdiction doctrine, courts may suspend proceedings to allow an administrative agency with specialized expertise to determine an issue within the scope of its regulatory authority).
36 H. ENFORCING GENERALLY APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODES AND OTHER LAWS
If group home operators are engaging in activities that constitute public nuisances; violating generally applicable building, housing, or other health and safety laws; committing fraud; or engaging in other illegal activities, local governments can address these issues through the same code enforcement and other legal processes they apply to others who violate municipal codes and other laws. This may still require considering if reasonable accommodations are appropriate in some circumstances. And local governments should avoid overbroad or discriminatory applications of nuisance laws, such as basing nuisance actions on 911 calls for emergency services.113 But if a group home is found to have violated local or state law, local governments may seek equitable relief that could include more stringent oversight and other affirmative relief to prevent further violations.

Focusing on individual group homes that are actually causing problems is a better practice than adopting overly broad and constraining regulations for all group homes that conflict with state housing laws.

8. RESOURCE MATERIALS AND STATE CONTACTS
Resource Materials
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update), available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4- 27-2021.pdf
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory, HCD (Sep. 15, 2020), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf Housing Element Building Blocks, HCD, available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks 113 See. e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12162, subd. (a); United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Enforcement of Local Nuisance and Crime-Free Housing Ordinances (Sep. 13, 2016), available at
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/FINALNUISANCEORDGDNCE.PDF. 37 Housing Element Building Blocks – Constraints for People with Disabilities, HCD, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks/constraints-people-disabilities Housing Element Building Blocks – Persons with Disabilities, HCD, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks/people-disabilities-including-developmental-disabilities Housing Element Building Blocks – Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types, HCD, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks/zoning-variety-of-housing-types Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice – State and Local Land Use Laws and Practices and the Application of the Fair Housing Act, HUD - DOJ (Nov. 10, 2016), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/912366/download
Senate Bill 2—Legislation Effective January 1, 2008: Local Planning and Approval for Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing, HCD (Apr. 10, 2013 update), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/sb-2-combinedupdate-mc-a11y.pdf Transitional and Supportive Housing, Chapter 183, Statutes of 2013 (SB 745), HCD (Apr. 24, 2014), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sb745memo042414.pdf Contacts
HCD
HCD accepts requests for technical assistance from local jurisdictions and requests for review of potential violations from any party. All comments submitted to HCD are subject to the California Public Records Act. Send email requests to: [email protected].

California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)
Information about DHCS’s complaint process for licensing issues at AOD facilities is available at https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/individuals/Pages/Sud-Complaints.aspx, by emailing [email protected], or by calling (877) 685-8333.

California Department of Social Services (CDSS)
Information about CDSS’s complaint process for licensing issues at facilities that it regulates is available at https://www.cdss.ca.gov/reporting/file-a-complaint/ccldcomplaints or by calling (844) 538-8766.

EXHIBIT 2

Housing Plan
Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4‐10
PROGRAM 2I: Promote State Density Bonus Incentives
Density bonus is an effective incentive to aid in the development of affordable housing units within Costa Mesa through providing concessions to proposed developments that meet specific affordability criteria.

These concessions may take the form of additional residential units permitted beyond the density allowed in the base zoning, a relaxed parking standard, as well asthe ability to deviate from developmentstandards.

Currently, the maximum number of concessions a project can receive through density bonus is three.

Objectives:
 Evaluate and update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with State Density Bonus Law.

Timeframe: To be completed by December 2024.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2J: Transitional and Supportive Housing
California Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires transitional and supportive housing to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Government Code Section 65651(a) also requires permanent supportive housing to be permitted by‐right in zones where multi‐family and mixed‐use development is permitted, including non‐residential zones permitting multi‐family uses if they meet the Government Code Section requirements.

Objectives:
 Amend the Zoning Code to include transitional and permanentsupportive housing within the City’s land use matrix in compliance with Senate Bill 2 and Government Code Section 65651  Monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate transitional and supportive housing.  Proactively engage relevant organizations to meet the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low‐income residents.

Timeframe: To be completed by December 2024.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/HOME‐ARP
PROGRAM 2K: Planning Application Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by State law. Development fees are necessary to implement planning, zoning and building safety laws and to provide the public services and infrastructure necessary to serve City residents. This program seeks to avoid application fees creating constraints to the development of affordable housing.

Objectives:
 Review planning application fees, with a special focus on the density bonus fee, and update the fee(s) to avoid creating a constraint to the development of affordable housing.

Timeframe: To be completed by December 2024.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4‐11
PROGRAM 2L: Development of Housing for Extremely Low and Lower‐Income Households The City recognizes the importance of supporting the development of housing for low and extremely low income households. It is a primary goal of the Housing Element to increase the feasibility of development of housing for extremely low and low income households.

Objectives:
 Subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80 percent AMI or lower, as funding is available.  Annually promote the benefits of this program to the development community by posting information on its webpage and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications regarding development opportunities and incentives.  Proactively reach out to developers at least once annually to identify and promote development opportunities.
 Adopt priority processing and streamlined review for developments with units affordable to lower income households.
 Support funding development applications throughout the planning period for projects proposing units affordable to lower income households.

Timeframe: As funding is available, promote the program and outreach; adopt priority processing and other incentives by December 2024.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2M: Parking Standards for Residential Developments The City’sresidential off‐street parking requirements are provided in Section 3.B.3 of this Housing Element.

Parking requirements ensure that there is adequate parking provided for residents and for guests in both single‐family and multi‐family residences. This program seeks to avoid potential constraints due to parking requirements to facilitate the development of multi‐family developments, and specifically affordable housing projects.

Objectives:
 Review and revise the Zoning Code’srequirementsfor residential off‐street parking for multi‐family projects to facilitate the development of multi‐family housing, and specifically affordable housing.

Timeframe: Review by December 2024; revise Code by Winter 2025.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2N: Reasonable Accommodation
The City has completed an analysis of its Reasonable Accommodation process in Section 3 of this Housing Element. By the nature of Reasonable Accommodation requests and the range of potential modifications that could need to be accommodated, the City has to evaluate each request individually. This process is described within the City’s Zoning Code and persons may contact the City’s planning department for assistance with requests. The City will review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4‐12
Objectives:
 Review and revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish potential objective standards, and provide guidance and amend as necessary to promote greater certainty on how approval findings will be implemented.
 Meet with local organizations and developersto promote accessto housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints.

Timeframe: Review and revise Code by December 2024. Annually review and, if necessary, revise the reasonable accommodations procedures. Annually meet with local organizations and housing developers to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2O: Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit
The City’s definitions of “family” and “single housekeeping unit” within the zoning code do not differentiate between related and unrelated individuals, or between disabled and non‐disabled individuals, living together. Notwithstanding, in order to promote flexibility to accommodate residents with different living conditions, the City will review and adopt revisions to its zoning code per the objectives below.

Objectives:
 Review and revise the definition of “single housekeeping unit” within the zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.

Timeframe: Review and revise Code by December 2024.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2P: Group Homes
The City has completed an analysis of its regulations applicable to group homes in Section 3 of this Housing Element. Group homes are allowed in all residential zoning districts through a conditional or special use permit. The City will review and adopt revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws per the objectives below.

Objectives:
 Review and revise the City’s zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses.

Timeframe: Review and revise Code by Winter 2024.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
EXHIBIT 3
22-56181

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

CITY OF COSTA MESA,
Defendant-Appellee.

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Case No. 8:19-cv-01710-JVS-GJS
Hon. James V. Selna, District Judge

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL

RIGHTS DEPARTMENT AND THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND

REVERSAL

ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
DANIEL A. OLIVAS
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II

CHRISTINA BULL ARNDT
Supervising Deputy Attorneys
General
LISA C. EHRLICH (SBN 270842)
KENNETH J. SUGARMAN
Deputy Attorneys General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 510-3489
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for California Civil Rights
Department and California Department
of Housing and Community
Development
Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 1 of 39

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI ...................................... 1 ARGUMENT................................................................................................. 3 I. California Law Prohibits Housing Discrimination
Against People with Disabilities............................................... 4 A. FEHA and Its Implementing Regulations Prohibit
Land Use Practices that Discriminate Against
People with Disabilities.................................................. 5 B. California’s Constitutional Privacy Right Protects
Group Home Residents................................................. 12 II. The Judgment Below Should Be Reversed Because Costa Mesa’s Ordinances Violate California Law............................ 13 A. Costa Mesa Failed to Make the Showings
Necessary to Sustain Its Facially Discriminatory
Ordinances Under FEHA.............................................. 14 B. Costa Mesa Failed to Demonstrate Compliance
with FEHA Reasonable Accommodation
Requirements................................................................ 21 III. Restrictive Zoning Codes Like Costa Mesa’s Are
Contrary to Public Policy and Have a Negative Impact on Housing for Californians with Disabilities............................. 25 CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 29 Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 2 of 39

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
ii
CASES
Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass’n v. Fair Emp’t & Hous.

Comm’n
121 Cal. App. 4th 1578 (2004)...................................................................7 Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Ass’n v. Nelson
25 Cal. App. 4th 1 (1994).................................................................. 13, 15 Brown v. Smith
55 Cal. App. 4th 767 (1997) ......................................................................7 City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson
27 Cal. 3d 123 (1980).................................................................. 12, 17, 24 City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson
90 Cal. App. 3d 606 (1979)..................................................................... 17 Coal. Advocating Legal Hous. Options v. City of Santa Monica 88 Cal. App. 4th 451 (2001).................................................................... 12 Martinez v. City of Clovis
90 Cal. App. 5th 193 (2023).................................................... 7, 11, 12, 16 Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee 300 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2002)............................................................. 15, 25 Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach
730 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2013)....................................................................6 Pack v. Fort Washington II
689 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (E.D. Cal. 2009)................................................... 20 Page v. Super. Ct.
31 Cal. App. 4th 1206 (1995).....................................................................7 Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 3 of 39

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
iii
Socal Recovery, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa
56 F.4th 802 (9th Cir. 2023)................................................................ 6, 28 Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Med. Ctr.
56 Cal. App. 4th 138 (1997) …................................................................ 6 Walker v. City of Lakewood
272 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001)....................................................................6 Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. State Bd. of Equalization
19 Cal. 4th 1 (1998)....................................................................................7

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
United States Code, Title 42
§ 3601 .........................................................................................................6 § 3631 .........................................................................................................6 California Government Code
§ 8899.50 ....................................................................................... 1, 18, 24 § 8899.50(a)(1) .................................................................................. 10, 11 § 12161 .......................................................................................................8 § 12161(a)...................................................................................................8 § 12161(b)...................................................................................................8 § 12162 .......................................................................................................8 § 12900 .................................................................................................. 1, 5 § 12920 .......................................................................................................1 § 12921 .......................................................................................................1 § 12921(b)...................................................................................................5 § 12926(j)....................................................................................................6 § 12927(c)(1) ................................................................................... 5, 9, 23 § 12930(e)...................................................................................................1 § 12930(j)....................................................................................................1 § 12935(a)...................................................................................................7 § 12955 .......................................................................................................5 § 12955(l)....................................................................................... 5, 10, 12 Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 4 of 39

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
iv
§ 12955(m)..................................................................................................6 § 12999 .................................................................................................. 1, 5 § 65000 .................................................................................................... 10 § 65008 .......................................................................................................1 § 65580 .......................................................................................................1 § 65582(f) ................................................................................................ 10 § 65583 .................................................................................................... 10 § 65583(a)(5) ......................................................................... 11, 16, 18, 24 § 65583(a)(7) ............................................................................... 11, 16, 18 § 65583(b)(1)..................................................................................... 11, 18 § 65583(c)(3) ............................................................................... 11, 18, 24 § 65583(c)(5) ..................................................................................... 18, 24 § 65583(c)(10)(A).............................................................................. 18, 24 § 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii)......................................................................... 11, 18 § 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv).................................................................. 11, 16, 18 § 65585(a)...................................................................................................2 § 65585(e)...................................................................................................2 § 65585(j)....................................................................................................2 § 65589.11 ..................................................................................................1 § 66499.58 ............................................................................................... 10 California Health and Safety Code
§ 50152 .......................................................................................................2 § 50456 .......................................................................................................2 § 50459 .......................................................................................................2 § 50464 .......................................................................................................2 Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 5 of 39

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
v
California Code of Regulations, title 2
§ 12005 .................................................................................. 1 § 12005(bb) ........................................................................7, 8 § 12040(c)............................................................................14 § 12042(f)(1)(A)........................................................ 9, 14, 19 § 12042(f)(1)(B) .................................................................... 9 § 12042(f)(2).............................................................. 9, 14, 20 § 12176(c) .............................................................................. 9 § 12177 ................................................................................21 § 12177(a) ......................................................................10, 21 § 12177(c) ......................................................................10, 21 § 12179(b)(1)....................................................................... 22 § 12179(e) ........................................................................9, 22 § 12179(f) ........................................................................9, 22 § 12180(c)(6) ....................................................................... 23 § 12271 .................................................................................. 1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
California Constitution Article I, § 1............................................................ 12

COURT RULES
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 29(a)(2)...............................................................................................3 Rule 29(a)(4)(E)..........................................................................................3

OTHER AUTHORITIES
Cal. Dep’t of Hous. and Cmty. Dev., Group Home Technical Advisory (2022),
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planningand-community/group-home-technical-advisory-2022.pdf ............. passim City Approved Sober Living/Group Homes, Costa Mesa,
https://tinyurl.com/yukycasy ................................................................... 28 Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 6 of 39

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
vi
Fusion Ctr., Data Brief: 2020 and 2021 Increases in Deaths in California, Cal. Dep’t of Pub. Health (July 1, 2022),
https://tinyurl.com/4bbcb5d4................................................................... 28 Group Homes/Sober Living Information and Application, Costa Mesa, https://tinyurl.com/4wjhb6ky........................................................ 29 Korcha et al., Sober Living Houses: Research in Northern and Southern California, Addiction Science & Clinical Practice (2015), https://tinyurl.com/rh8prtbw....................................................... 26 Mericle et al., Identifying the Availability of Recovery Housing in the U.S.: The NSTARR Project, Drug and Alcohol
Dependence 230 (2022), https://tinyurl.com/y48mpfze.......................... 28 Polcin et al., Sober Living Houses for Alcohol and Drug Dependence: 18-Month Outcomes, J. of Substance Abuse
Treatment (2010), https://tinyurl.com/2ba5ccbw.................................... 17 Polcin et al., What Did We Learn from Our Study on Sober Living Houses and Where Do We Go from Here? J. of
Psychoactive Drugs (Dec. 2010),
https://tinyurl.com/yzcxmb3r .................................................................. 26 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Servs. Admin., Recovery Housing: Best Practices and Suggested Guidelines (2018), https://tinyurl.com/mr4c4arz ................................................................... 26 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health (2016), https://tinyurl.com/ssnem8v3................................... 25 Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 7 of 39 1 INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI
Californians have the right to obtain and hold housing of their choice without discrimination based on disability. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12920- 12921.1 In fact, California law requires local governments to take affirmative actions to further opportunities for people with disabilities to live where they choose, in housing that meets their particular needs. These rights and requirements are enumerated in several state laws, including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, id. §§ 12900-12999) and its implementing regulations; the Housing Element Law (id. §§ 65580- 65589.11); the Land Use Anti-Discrimination Law (id. § 65008); and the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Law (id. § 8899.50).

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD, formerly known as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing) is the state agency charged with enforcing California’s civil rights laws, including the fair housing protections in FEHA. In exercising this authority, CRD has promulgated comprehensive regulations implementing FEHA, see, e.g., Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, §§ 12005-12271, and has investigated and prosecuted civil actions under FEHA in state and federal court, see Gov’t Code § 12930(e)-(j). CRD 1 All statutory citations are to the California Codes unless otherwise indicated.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 8 of 39 2 thus has a strong interest in the proper application of FEHA standards in housing discrimination cases in California.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the state agency responsible for enforcing housing laws in California, and has “primary responsibility for development and implementation of housing policy.” Health & Safety Code § 50152; see also Gov’t Code § 65585(j). HCD’s responsibilities also include advising cities on state housing law and policy, developing guidelines on “housing elements” and other housing law issues, and reviewing each local government’s housing element for substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. Health & Safety Code §§ 50456, 50459, 50464; Gov’t Code § 65585(a)-(e). One of HCD’s recent initiatives to carry this mandate out is its Group Home Technical Advisory, which was issued in 2022 in response to legal concerns around some local governments’ adoption of new zoning regulations for group homes—housing shared by people with disabilities that provides support for the residents’ disability-related needs—and explained Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 9 of 39 3 how these regulations can conflict with state law.2 HCD thus has a strong interest in the proper application of state housing laws and their interaction with FEHA, including in the area of group homes.3
As discussed further below, it appears to amici that the district court failed to properly apply the broad protections California law affords people with disabilities with respect to housing. Amici therefore respectfully submit this brief to aid this Court’s consideration of the important state law issues this case presents.

ARGUMENT
California law protects people with disabilities from housing discrimination, and requires cities to take affirmative actions in their landuse rules to advance the ability of people with disabilities to live in neighborhoods of their choice and in residential settings that address their 2 This document is available on the Department’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ group-home-technical-advisory-2022.pdf.
3 No party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief; and no person other than the amici curiae contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief. See Fed.

R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(E). Amici have filed a motion for leave along with this brief, as the City of Costa Mesa refused to consent to the filing. See Fed. R.

App. P. 29(a)(2).

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 10 of 39 4 particular disability-related needs. As one aspect of that statutory and regulatory scheme, FEHA requires courts to carefully scrutinize local land use laws, like Costa Mesa’s, that facially discriminate against group homes for people with disabilities. Such laws are permissible only if they objectively benefit people with disabilities and are the least restrictive means of achieving the municipality’s policy objectives. The judgment below should be reversed because Costa Mesa failed to make such a showing, and also failed to satisfy FEHA’s reasonable-accommodation requirements.

Ordinances like Costa Mesa’s not only violate fundamental principles of state housing and antidiscrimination law; they are also contrary to California’s critical public policy goals and do real harm to people with disabilities.4

I. CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS HOUSING DISCRIMINATION

AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
FEHA and its regulations expressly prohibit housing discrimination against protected classes of individuals, including people with disabilities.

FEHA’s protection includes its incorporation of other state housing laws as a 4 As Appellant’s opening brief explains, it appears that federal law may require reversal as well. But amici will address only certain state law issues in this brief.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 11 of 39 5 potential basis for liability. In addition, the California Constitution provides a privacy right that extends to group housing.

A. FEHA and Its Implementing Regulations Prohibit Land
Use Practices that Discriminate Against People with
Disabilities
FEHA provides comprehensive protection against housing and employment discrimination in California. Gov’t Code §§ 12900-12999. It establishes as a “civil right” the “opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing without discrimination” on the basis of a number of enumerated protected characteristics. Id. § 12921(b). FEHA prohibits specific unlawful housing practices, including discrimination or harassment generally, retaliation, otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling based on discrimination, and discriminating through public or private land use practices. Id. § 12955; see id. § 12955(l) (“Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants, zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law . . . that make housing opportunities unavailable.”). FEHA defines “discrimination” to include the “refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when these accommodations may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Id. § 12927(c)(1).

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 12 of 39 6 FEHA prohibits discrimination based on, among other characteristics, disability, and “includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.” Gov’t Code § 12955(m).

Individuals recovering from addiction are recognized as people with disabilities, see id. § 12926(j), and “sober living homes and other dwellings intended for occupancy by persons recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction are protected from illegal discrimination against the disabled.” Socal Recovery, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 56 F.4th 802, 814 (9th Cir. 2023).

FEHA and its federal law counterpart, the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, are related but offer distinct sets of protections.

California courts applying FEHA “‘often follow decisions construing federal antidiscrimination statutes, as long as those decisions provide appropriate guidance.’” Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1126 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Med. Ctr., 56 Cal. App. 4th 138, 150 n.6 (1997)). Thus, in some instances, this Court “‘appl[ies] the same standards to FHA and FEHA claims.’” Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 n.14 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Walker, 272 F.2d at 1131 n.8). But FEHA has force independent of the FHA, and in Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 13 of 39 7 certain situations it “may provide greater protection against discrimination”—that is, “the FHA provides a minimum level of protection that FEHA may exceed.” Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass’n v. Fair Emp’t & Hous. Comm’n, 121 Cal. App. 4th 1578, 1591 (2004) (quoting Brown v.

Smith, 55 Cal. App. 4th 767, 780 (1997)); see also, e.g., Page v. Super. Ct., 31 Cal. App. 4th 1206, 1215-16 (1995) (declining to follow federal decisions that would limit supervisor’s personal liability under California antidiscrimination statute); Martinez v. City of Clovis, 90 Cal. App. 5th 193, 254-73 (2023) (analyzing FEHA claim separately from FHA claim), petition for review pending, No. S280039 (Cal.).

Pursuant to its legislative authority, see Gov’t Code § 12935(a), CRD has promulgated regulations implementing FEHA. These “quasi-legislative” regulations, which “have the dignity of statutes” under principles of California administrative law, Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal. 4th 1, 10-11 (1998), are relevant to this case in at least three respects.

First, the FEHA regulations incorporate acts under other state housing laws into the definition of “[p]ublic land use practices” that can be challenged as discriminatory under FEHA. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12005(bb). The regulations define “[p]ublic land use practices” to include Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 14 of 39 8 “all practices by governmental entities . . . in connection with development and land use that are related to or have an effect on existing or proposed dwellings or housing opportunities.” Id.5 The FEHA regulations specifically prohibit discriminatory treatment and discriminatory effects in such land use practices. Id. §§ 12161-12162. The regulations’ definition of “land use practices” thus covers a broad range of potential public action, and prohibits such actions that make housing opportunities unavailable for people with disabilities and impose different requirements on a protected class, if the practice intentionally discriminates against or has a discriminatory effect on members of the protected class. Id. §§ 12005(bb), 12161(a)-(b).

Second, when a public entity’s land use policy is facially discriminatory—as is the case with Costa Mesa’s ordinances here, see infra at 14—the entity must make two specific showings to avoid liability. It must establish that the policy both “[o]bjectively benefits a protected class” and

5 These practices include, among other things, adoption of ordinances, permitting and zoning decisions, actions under the Housing Element Law (part of the California Planning and Zoning Law and the State Housing Law, both cited in the regulation), and “[a]ll practices that could affect the availability, feasibility, use, or enjoyment of housing opportunities.” Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 2, § 12005(bb).

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 15 of 39 9 “[i]s the least restrictive means of achieving the identified purpose.” Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12042(f)(1)(A), (f)(2).6
Third, the FEHA regulations also implement the statute’s reasonable accommodation requirement. See Gov’t Code § 12927(c)(1). As applicable to zoning and permitting cases, a public entity must “make reasonable accommodations unless providing the requested accommodation would constitute an undue financial and administrative burden or a fundamental alteration of its program.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12176(c); see Gov’t Code § 12927(c)(1) (discrimination can include failure to make reasonable accommodations).
7 Moreover, the regulations require that whenever a public entity cannot immediately grant a reasonable accommodation request, it must undertake a good-faith interactive process “to exchange information to

6 In addition, or as an alternative, to demonstrating an “objective benefit,” an entity may also show the policy “[r]esponds to legitimate safety concerns raised by the individuals affected by the facially discriminatory policy, rather than being based on stereotypes about them.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12042(f)(1)(B). Here, the district court found the City had not offered any such concerns at trial to justify its regulations. ER 10. 7 A proposed accommodation constitutes a “fundamental alteration” only if it would “change the essential nature of the services or operations of the person being asked to provide the accommodation or modification,” and cannot be denied based on “fears or prejudices” about the disability, or because it “might possibly become an undue burden if extended to multiple other individuals who might request accommodations or modifications.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12179(e)-(f).

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 16 of 39 10 identify, evaluate, and implement a reasonable accommodation or modification that allows the individual with a disability equal opportunity.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12177(a). This includes affirmatively “identify[ing] if there is another accommodation or modification that is equally effective.” Id. § 12177(c).

In addition to these regulatory provisions, FEHA’s prohibition of actions that “make housing opportunities unavailable” based on protected characteristics, Gov’t Code § 12955(l), is informed by state laws that require local jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate adequate housing opportunities for all individuals. A key aspect of the Planning and Zoning Law, Gov’t Code §§ 65000-66499.58, is the requirement that local governments prepare a housing element, see id. § 65582(f). In that document, cities must thoroughly analyze fair housing issues related to housing for people with disabilities and set forth a program of actions that protect and promote such housing, as well as meaningfully, quantifiably, and affirmatively further fair housing. Id. § 65583.8 Among other requirements, 8 ‘“Affirmatively furthering fair housing”’ is defined under California law to include “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 17 of 39 11 the housing element must “demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder . . . meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities,” id. § 65583(a)(5), and must “remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities,” id. § 65583(c)(3). It must include a fair housing assessment with specific goals, implementation strategies, and “metrics and milestones” for evaluating results. Id. § 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv). Notably, to satisfy these obligations, cities are required to use and adduce data, analyses, and quantitative objectives. See, e.g., id. § 65583(a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(1), & (c)(10)(A)(ii). In other words, numerous provisions of state housing law address the adequacy of local policies in protecting and promoting housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

Recently, the California Court of Appeal held that local governmental actions that violate the Planning and Zoning Law (including the Housing Element Law) and make housing opportunities unavailable to members of a protected class also violate FEHA. Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 268-71.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had stated a FEHA claim by pleading protected characteristics.” Gov’t Code § 8899.50(a)(1) (internal quotation marks in original).

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 18 of 39 12 that a local government’s failure to comply with the Housing Element Law “‘make[s] housing opportunities unavailable’ as that phrase is used in . . . section 12955, subdivision (l).” Id. at 269. Martinez thus underscores that one important aspect of FEHA’s housing-related protections stems from the statute’s interaction with other state housing laws.

B. California’s Constitutional Privacy Right Protects Group Home Residents
In addition to these state statutory and regulatory provisions, the California Constitution provides protections for people with disabilities living in communal, group home settings that courts must consider when examining local ordinances. This protection stems from Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which declares an “inalienable right[]” to (among other things) “privacy.”
In City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 Cal. 3d 123 (1980), the California Supreme Court held that this constitutional privacy right prohibited a city ordinance that disallowed more than five persons unrelated by blood or marriage from living in a communal setting. Id. at 134. The court explained that the state Constitution protects a “right of privacy not only in one’s family but also in one’s home . . . [and] the right to live with whomever one wishes.” Id. at 130; see also Coal. Advocating Legal Hous.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 19 of 39 13 Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal. App. 4th 451, 458-61 (2001) (rejecting city’s limitations on who may live in an accessory dwelling unit because “the right to choose with whom to live is fundamental”).

This protection is relevant here because of the importance of communal living arrangements to people with disabilities. Group homes can provide peer support for disability-related needs, help people with disabilities live in deinstitutionalized settings, and integrate residents into their communities.

See Group Home Technical Advisory at 1, 6. As a result, the California Legislature has recognized that “‘persons with disabilities . . . are significantly more likely than other persons to live with unrelated persons in group [homes].’” Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Ass’n v. Nelson, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1, 6 (1994) (quoting 1992 Cal. Stat., ch. 1277, § 18, and 12 West Cal. Legis. Serv. 6038 (legislative finding and declaration in statute relating to fair housing)).

II. THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE COSTA MESA’S ORDINANCES VIOLATE CALIFORNIA LAW
The district court failed to properly apply the state law principles just discussed, and there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Costa Mesa, necessitating reversal.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 20 of 39 14 A. Costa Mesa Failed to Make the Showings Necessary to Sustain Its Facially Discriminatory Ordinances Under
FEHA
Costa Mesa’s ordinances at issue here apply to “group homes,” which are defined as dwellings “being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law.” ER 251. As the district court correctly recognized, see ER 252, this scheme is a “‘[f]acially discriminatory policy’” because it “explicitly conditions a housing opportunity on a protected basis, takes adverse action based on a protected basis, or directs adverse action to be taken based on a protected basis.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12040(c) (internal quotation marks in original). Thus, to avoid liability here, Costa Mesa bore the burden of establishing both that its law “[o]bjectively benefits a protected class,” id. § 12042(f)(1)(A), and that it “[i]s the least restrictive means of achieving the identified purpose,” id. § 12042(f)(2). Costa Mesa did not satisfy either prong of this analysis.
“Objectively benefits a protected class.” Costa Mesa’s
counterintuitive argument that its ordinances, which facially discriminate against group homes, in fact “objectively benefit” people with disabilities, ER 6-10, suffers from two key flaws.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 21 of 39 15 First, the gravamen of Costa Mesa’s successful “benefits” argument was that its policy purportedly advantages group homes by allowing them to avoid the restrictions the City places on “boarding houses”—i.e., a 1,000- foot spacing requirement, exclusion from a single-family residential zone, and “a six-person and six-room limit.” See, e.g., ER 6-10. But a comparison between group homes for people with disabilities and boarding houses is inapt. The communal living, peer support, and other assistance that group homes provide are essential housing resources for people with disabilities, who may not be able to live without them, unlike the non-disabled residents of boarding houses. Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F.3d 775, 787 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, group homes, unlike boarding houses, are protected by state and federal fair housing laws. See e.g., Broadmoor San Clemente Homeowners Ass’n, 25 Cal. App. 4th. at 6; Group Home Technical Advisory at 24.

The City has failed to carry its burden to justify its regulations in this case, because treating people with disabilities who require group homes slightly better than “boarding house” residents is irrelevant. See Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 787. Costa Mesa’s regulations placing burdens and restrictions on group homes do not result in a “benefit” to people with disabilities, who have needs addressed by group homes that people without Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 22 of 39 16 disabilities who live in boarding houses do not share. Nor has the City shown that it would actually be lawful to impose on group homes the restrictions it imposes on boarding houses, or that Ohio House and other group homes would not be entitled to reasonable accommodations from them. The “benefits” defense based on a comparison to boarding houses fails as a matter of law.

Costa Mesa’s restrictions on group homes also conflict with the City’s obligations under state law to affirmatively further fair housing for people with disabilities and account for their particular needs. Among other deficiencies, the City’s policy fails to account for the “special housing needs” of “persons with disabilities,” Gov’t Code § 65583(a)(7); fails to “remove governmental constraints” on housing for people with disabilities, id. § 65583(a)(5); and fails to give “highest priority” to factors that “limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity” for people with disabilities, id. § 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv). These failures may well independently violate FEHA by virtue of making housing opportunities unavailable to people with disabilities. See Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 268-70; supra at 10-12. At a minimum, however, they should foreclose Costa Mesa’s argument that its facially discriminatory ordinances somehow objectively benefit people with disabilities.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 23 of 39 17 The City seeks to distinguish Ohio House from other shared housing that it treats like single-family homes because not all of its occupants are joint owners or tenants. ER 5606, 5918. But in Adamson, the Court held that the California Constitution’s protection of privacy rights still applies when a property owner or primary tenant (like Ohio House) is renting out rooms for others to live in a communal setting. See Adamson, 27 Cal. 3d at 127-28, 136 & n.5; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 90 Cal. App. 3d 606, 153 Cal.

Rptr. 507, 509 (1979) (confirming that Adamson was renting space in her house to the other occupants). In addition, group homes like Ohio House, in which the occupants are not joint owners or tenants, are well-established and important communal housing resources for people with disabilities.9 It is incongruous to suggest that restrictions contradicting state constitutional rights could provide a legally cognizable “benefit” to people who live in group homes.

Second, in addition to the legal inadequacy of the alleged benefits themselves, Costa Mesa failed to meet its burden to produce sufficient

9 See Group Home Technical Advisory at 24-25; Polcin et al., Sober Living Houses for Alcohol and Drug Dependence: 18-Month Outcomes, J. of Substance Abuse Treatment (2010); 38(4):356-365, at 2-4, https://tinyurl.com/2ba5ccbw.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 24 of 39 18 evidence of the imposed restrictions’ supposed benefit to people with disabilities. This failure is inconsistent with California’s housing laws, which require public agencies to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing and to make related assessments in their planning, supported by objective, quantifiable data. Gov’t Code §§ 8899.50, 65583(c)(10)(A). This includes an obligation to assess displacement risk, id. § 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii); analyze potential and actual governmental constraints on housing for people with disabilities and demonstrate efforts to remove constraints, id. § 65583(a)(5); perform a quantifiable analysis of housing needs for people with disabilities, id. § 65583(a)(7); state goals and quantified objectives relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing, id. § 65583(b)(1); address and work to remove constraints on housing for people with disabilities, id. § 65583(c)(3); and promote housing for people with disabilities, id. § 65583(c)(5).

Instead, the City’s “benefits” defense relied on subjective, speculative, and unsubstantiated opinions that people with disabilities could benefit from the City’s policy both allowing for the siting of group homes where they purportedly would not otherwise be allowed if they were regulated as “boarding houses,” and requiring 650-foot separation to prevent potential feelings of institutionalization for group home residents. See, e.g., ER 7-10.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 25 of 39 19 Related, the City failed to fully consider and support with sufficient evidence, for example, the extent to which its policy precludes group homes in areas or locations where they otherwise would be sited, or already have been sited, ignoring the creation of new constraints on housing for people with disabilities. And the City failed to fully consider and support with sufficient evidence whether more housing opportunities of their choice for the protected class would be in fact lost rather than gained as a result of the policy, including ignoring displacement risks. As a result, the district court lacked the requisite objective evidence, such as detailed quantitative data, studies, or assessments of what the needs of people with disabilities were or what the actual effects of the City’s group home policy would be. See generally ER 6-10; see also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12042(f)(1)(A) (requiring defendants to show that a facially discriminatory housing policy “[o]bjectively benefits a protected class”). Indeed, what is known about the ordinances’ actual effects undermines the City’s claim, despite the lack of detailed quantitative studies. Those effects will include displacing dozens of people from their Ohio House homes and effectively imposing quotas on how many people recovering from addiction can live in each of the City’s various neighborhoods, and therefore in the City as a whole.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 26 of 39 20 “Least restrictive means.” Even if Costa Mesa had been able to show that its ordinances objectively benefit people with disabilities, it would also have had to establish that its policy “[i]s the least restrictive means of achieving the identified purpose.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12042(f)(2); Pack v. Fort Washington II, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1243-44, 1248 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (granting summary adjudication on FEHA facial discrimination claim because rule was not the least restrictive means of achieving alleged purpose and noting possible alternative rule).

The City did not demonstrate with sufficient evidence that it was unable to achieve its central claimed purpose—avoiding the creation of institutionalized living in residentially zoned areas—by less restrictive means than it chose. Again, assuming for purposes of discussion that the City’s goal of limiting “institutionalization” was legitimate, the district court failed to scrutinize, for example, the City’s claimed need for at least 650 feet of space between group homes as the least restrictive means of achieving this purpose. See, e.g., ER 8-9 (lack of discussion of possible less restrictive alternatives the jury could have considered). This constitutes an independent ground for invalidating the City’s facially discriminatory ordinances.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 27 of 39 21 B. Costa Mesa Failed to Demonstrate Compliance with
FEHA Reasonable Accommodation Requirements
Apart from having enacted facially discriminatory ordinances, the record here shows that Costa Mesa violated FEHA by failing to make a reasonable accommodation for Ohio House, which requested that it be permitted to operate within 550 feet of another group home rather than the minimum 650 feet required by the City’s ordinance. This failure has two aspects. First, as specified in FEHA’s regulations, Costa Mesa was required to undertake a good-faith interactive process in response to Ohio House’s request for reasonable accommodation. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12177. This includes evaluating and implementing a reasonable accommodation if possible, or affirmatively “identify[ing] if there is another accommodation or modification that is equally effective.” Id. § 12177(a), (c). It appears that the City did not make these interactive efforts and the district court did not consider these requirements when determining there was sufficient evidence to find the denial of a reasonable accommodation did not violate FEHA. See ER 2892-97; ER 16.

Second, as relevant here, a requested accommodation may only be denied if it would constitute an unacceptable “fundamental alteration,” meaning it would “change the essential nature of the services or operations” Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 28 of 39 22 being offered. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 12179(b)(1), (e). And, a reasonable accommodation request cannot be denied based on “fears or prejudices” about the disability, or because it “might possibly become an undue burden if extended to multiple other individuals who might request accommodations or modifications.” Id. § 12179(f).
“Fundamental alteration.” The court found that the jury had sufficient evidence to determine that a waiver of the 650-foot separation requirement constituted a “fundamental alteration” of the City’s zoning code creating residential neighborhoods. This was based on City testimony that a “cluster of group homes increases the number of adults living in an area, which increase[s] parking and traffic, [and] leads to increased related complaints,” such that “[t]he City wanted to reduce these effects to prevent the ‘institutionalization’ of residential neighborhoods and the degradation of the residential nature.” ER 16.

Assuming only for purposes of argument that the City’s goal was legitimate, the court’s order did not discuss any sufficient evidence showing that a deviation from the 650-foot separation rule would lead to these negative results, let alone any sufficient evidence that the 100-foot departure from the rule that Ohio House requested would do so. Indeed, Ohio House had already been located 550 feet from another group home, and there was Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 29 of 39 23 no sufficient evidence discussed that this had created an institutionalized setting.

Moreover, the City’s concerns are a far cry from what are properly considered fundamental alterations. FEHA and its regulations specifically anticipate that cities will need to adjust their zoning codes to reasonably accommodate disability-related housing needs, Gov’t Code § 12927(c)(1); Cal. Code Regs tit. 2, § 12180(c)(6), undercutting the City’s argument that the claimed speculative effects of increased density alleged here could be considered fundamental alterations. Here, the allegations of increased parking needs, van traffic, and loading and unloading passengers, 10 which
could come from any home with several residents—such as a multigenerational family living together, a home that receives a large number of deliveries or visitors, or families with regular carpools—is unlikely to rise to the level of changing the “essential nature” of a residentially-zoned neighborhood. Because these effects can be caused by many different sources, they should be addressed by generally applicable parking regulations, traffic calming measures, or occupancy standards instead of 10 The district court acknowledged that Ohio House did not receive any specific noise, parking, or smoking complaints in the past. ER 16.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 30 of 39 24 singling out group homes with discriminatory and constraining regulations.

See, e.g., Adamson, 27 Cal. 3d at 133; Group Home Technical Advisory at 30-31.

The City’s reaction to its claimed concerns also did not consider its obligations under state law to affirmatively furthering fair housing. These obligations include, among other things, protecting individuals with disabilities’ right to housing of their choice, and the housing they find most suitable for their disability-related needs, while removing constraints on their ability to obtain this housing. See, e.g., Gov’t Code §§ 8899.50; 65583(a)(5), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(10)(A). The accommodation Ohio House has requested may be consistent with, and indeed required by, state housing law.

The district court’s failure to consider the requested accommodation in light of the City’s obligations under state law was error.
“Fears or prejudices.” To justify denying the accommodation, Costa Mesa argued that having a greater number of persons per household, like Ohio House does, strained the City’s infrastructure, and could create “institutionalization” of zoned residential neighborhoods. ER 16. But this argument, rather than justifying denying Ohio House’s accommodation request, appears to reflect a concern that other group homes might seek a similar accommodation in the future. It thus appears to rest on “fears or Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 31 of 39 25 prejudices” that multiple group homes might seek reasonable accommodations to locate or remain in Costa Mesa, and that group home residents somehow cause uniquely problematic traffic, noise, or activity (as the City allows similar traffic, noise, and activity from other homes with several residents). That is precisely the kind of prejudicial reasoning FEHA rejects. Cf. Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 786 (noting that FHA rejects city actions based on “blanket stereotypes about disabled persons rather than particularized concerns about individual residents . . . the use of stereotypes and ignorance, and . . . [g]eneralized perceptions about disabilities and unfounded speculations about threats to safety . . . as grounds to justify exclusion”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

III. RESTRICTIVE ZONING CODES LIKE COSTA MESA’S ARE

CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY AND HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT

ON HOUSING FOR CALIFORNIANS WITH DISABILITIES
As discussed above, group homes are an essential resource for people with disabilities. Group homes that provide sober living environments play a key role in substance abuse recovery care.11 They are “alcohol and drug free living environments that offer peer support for recovery outside the context 11 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health (2016) at 4-4, https://tinyurl.com/ssnem8v3.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 32 of 39 26 of treatment.”12 According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, community support “is a critical aspect of achieving and maintaining recovery,” and thus, recovery residences “are uniquely qualified to assist individuals in all phases of recovery, especially those in early recovery, by furnishing social capital and recovery supports.”13 Research demonstrates that residents show improvement in a variety of areas, including drug and alcohol use, employment, psychiatric symptoms, and arrests.14 Group homes thus enable people with disabilities to live in the community while still receiving the needed support for continued recovery.

As discussed above, California law recognizes the important benefits group homes provide to people with disabilities by establishing certain protections for them—protections that ordinances like Costa Mesa’s fail to 12 Polcin et al., What Did We Learn from Our Study on Sober Living Houses and Where Do We Go from Here? J. of Psychoactive Drugs (Dec. 2010) 42(4):425-433, at 2, https://tinyurl.com/yzcxmb3r. 13 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Servs. Admin., Recovery Housing: Best Practices and Suggested Guidelines (2018) at 3, https://tinyurl.com/mr4c4arz.
14 Korcha et al., Sober Living Houses: Research in Northern and Southern California, Addiction Science & Clinical Practice (2015) 10 (Suppl. 1):A30, https://tinyurl.com/rh8prtbw.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 33 of 39 27 recognize. In addition to the problems inherent in the City’s overall permitting requirements, the Group Home Technical Advisory explains how Costa Mesa’s other, more specific group home regulations conflict with its duties to avoid discriminating against such housing and to affirmatively promote and protect it. These regulations include, for example, the City’s 650-foot spacing requirement, definition of single housekeeping units, and special occupancy standards for group homes.15 Discriminatory restrictions like these and others in Costa Mesa’s ordinances “can block new group homes from opening, force existing ones to close, and impose costs, legal fees, and administrative burdens that make it difficult for group homes to operate.”16
These problems are not hypothetical. Restrictive zoning codes have had—and continue to have—a negative impact on the availability of this important type of housing opportunity for people with disabilities.17 As an initial matter, recent research demonstrates that group homes for those recovering from addiction are not highly concentrated in Orange County, 15 See generally Group Home Technical Advisory at 23-36. 16 Id. at 1.
17 Group Home Technical Advisory at 7.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 34 of 39 28 relative to the rest of California or the nation as a whole.18 In fact, California is behind many other states in the number of such group homes per capita, despite having a higher age-adjusted alcohol/drug mortality rate than many other states.
19 Moreover, the last two years have seen a large percentage increase in the number of such deaths in California, indicating a likely increasing need for group homes in the State at a time when there are fewer homes per capita than many other states.20
Restrictive zoning codes can limit this number even further, as is evident from Costa Mesa’s own data. Before Costa Mesa adopted its group home ordinances, it estimated there were 94 sober living homes in the City’s residential zones. Socal Recovery, LLC, 56 F.4th at 806.21 As of 2022, the City counted only 16 group homes, with at least 68 having closed. Id. at 806 18 Mericle et al., Identifying the Availability of Recovery Housing in the U.S.: The NSTARR Project, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 230 (2022), at 6-8, figs. 1, 2, tbl. 1, https://tinyurl.com/y48mpfze. 19 Id. at tbl. 1.
20 Fusion Ctr., Data Brief: 2020 and 2021 Increases in Deaths in California, Cal. Dep’t of Pub. Health (July 1, 2022), at 8, 9, tbl. 2, https://tinyurl.com/4bbcb5d4.
21 The SoCal Recovery decision cites data from the city website: City Approved Sober Living/Group Homes, https://tinyurl.com/yukycasy. That decision did not consider the validity of the City’s ordinances.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 35 of 39 29 & nn.6-7. The City’s closure list now includes 83 closed facilities, indicating that an additional 15 facilities may have closed.22
The expert evidence in this case confirms this alarming reduction in available housing for people with disabilities. Professor Brian Connolly concluded that the City’s ordinances restricted the availability of group homes; some were even forced to close, displacing people with disabilities.

See Connolly Expert Rep. at 53 (Feb. 14, 2022), ECF No. 249-3. His report also discusses how the closure of such facilities, as with other areas of the housing market, presumptively increases the cost of housing in remaining group homes. Id. at 54.

In short, restrictive zoning codes, such as those at issue here in Costa Mesa, constrain housing opportunities and choice for people with disabilities. This expressly contravenes FEHA, the State’s housing and planning laws, the mission of CRD and HCD, and the policy of the State of California.

CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court should be reversed.
22 Group Homes/Sober Living Information and Application, Costa Mesa, https://tinyurl.com/4wjhb6ky (providing information on “Operators that have closed”). The list can be found at https://tinyurl.com/2absudwh.

Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 36 of 39 30 Dated: June 29, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
DANIEL A. OLIVAS
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II

CHRISTINA BULL ARNDT
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
KENNETH J. SUGARMAN
Deputy Attorney General
/s/ Lisa C. Ehrlich
LISA C. EHRLICH
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Civil Rights Department and
Department of Housing and Community
Development
Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 37 of 39 31 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Form 8. Certificate of Compliance for Briefs
Instructions for this form: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form08instructions.pdf 9th Cir. Case Number(s) 22-56181
I am the attorney or self-represented party.

This brief contains 5,897 words, including 0 words manually counted in any visual images, and excluding the items exempted by FRAP 32(f). The brief’s type size and typeface comply with FRAP 32(a)(5) and (6).

I certify that this brief (select only one):
[ ] complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 32-1.
[ ] is a cross-appeal brief and complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 28.1-1. [X] is an amicus brief and complies with the word limit of FRAP 29(a)(5), Cir. R. 29-2(c)(2), or Cir. R. 29-2(c)(3).
[ ] is for a death penalty case and complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 32-4. [ ] complies with the longer length limit permitted by Cir. R. 32-2(b) because (select only one):
[ ] it is a joint brief submitted by separately represented parties. [ ] a party or parties are filing a single brief in response to multiple briefs. [ ] a party or parties are filing a single brief in response to a longer joint brief. [ ] complies with the length limit designated by court order dated _____________. [ ] is accompanied by a motion to file a longer brief pursuant to Cir. R. 32-2(a).

Signature /s/ Lisa C. Ehrlich Date June 29, 2023
(use “s/[typed name]” to sign electronically-filed documents) Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 38 of 39

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on this 29th day of June 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL

RIGHTS DEPARTMENT AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN SUPPORT OF
APPELLANT AND REVERSAL with the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
/s/Lisa Ehrlich
Lisa Ehrlich
Case: 22-56181, 06/29/2023, ID: 12745956, DktEntry: 25-2, Page 39 of 39 EXHIBIT 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 29, 2023
Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Dear Lori Ann Farrell Harrison:

RE: Group Home Ordinances – Letter of Technical Assistance In the attached May 9, 2023, findings letter, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) offered to provide additional technical assistance regarding, among other things, implementation of Costa Mesa’s (City) 6th cycle housing element programs to review its group home and related policies. This letter provides that technical assistance for the City’s review of its group home ordinances, including Ordinance Nos. 14-13, 15-11, and 17-05, which amended Title 13 of the City’s Municipal Code (MC 13), as well as related City policies, such as its reasonable accommodations procedures.

HCD has reviewed the City’s group home ordinances and related policies under its authority pursuant to Government Code section 65585, which includes authority to review cities’ compliance with the Land Use Discrimination Law (Gov. Code, § 65008), Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Law (Gov. Code, §§ 8899.50, 65583), and State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.). HCD finds that the City’s group home ordinances and related policies violate Government Code sections 65008, 65583, and 8899.50 by failing to meet the City’s obligations to affirmatively further, protect, and remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, and also by discriminating against this housing.

To comply with state law, the City must, among other things, immediately stop enforcing its group home ordinances, repeal them, and revise its reasonable accommodations policies. These actions are also necessary to timely and effectively implement the programs in the 6th cycle housing element that the City adopted on November 15, 2022, which are required for the City’s housing element to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law. These include Program 2J (Transitional and Supportive Housing), 2N (Reasonable Accommodation), Program 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit), Program 2P (Group Homes), and 4A (Fair Housing).

Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager

Page 2 ends

Costa Mesa City CouncilOctober 6, 2026

Costa Mesa City Council
October 6, 2026