Costa Mesa-based sober-living homes have filed two federal lawsuits against the city this week, saying that an ordinance the city council passed last month to regulate the group homes violates federal and state law by discriminating against recovering alcohol and drug addicts.

The lawsuits challenge the legality of the ordinance. One suit also alleges that city code enforcement and police officers harassed sober-living home residents and operators through a series of unwarranted “strike-force” inspections, stakeouts, citations and detainment.

Costa Mesa spokesman Bill Lobdell said the city does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The first lawsuit was filed Tuesday by Solid Landings, Inc., a parent corporation that operates an undisclosed number of Costa Mesa-based sober homes. The second suit was filed Thursday by Yellowstone Women’s First Step House, a Costa Mesa-based nonprofit group that owns or operates four sober-living homes in the city, and the Sober Living Network, a California umbrella nonprofit group for sober-living homes with 11 members operating 18 group homes in Costa Mesa.

Both lawsuits ask the court to declare Costa Mesa’s ordinance unlawful, enter injunctions or restraining orders against the city, and award compensatory damages.

Recovering addicts are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that it is illegal to discriminate against disabled groups via zoning law.

But the plaintiffs in both lawsuits argue that Costa Mesa’s ordinance does just that.

Lawsuit was expected

Costa Mesa has expected to be sued over the new ordinance ever since the city council passed the legislation on Oct. 21. At that meeting, Deputy City Attorney Elena Gerli said the new law was written “as narrowly tailored as possible” to ensure it is “as defensible as possible,” because “a one-size fits all approach … makes it that much more likely for the ordinance to be struck down.”

For more than four years, the number of Costa Mesa sober houses has continued to grow. City officials estimate the city is now home to 200 facilities, representing a quarter of Orange County’s total sober-living homes. Costa Mesa residents have complained that the homes cause excessive noise, traffic and secondhand smoke in residential neighborhoods.

The new law calls for a 650-foot buffer between unlicensed sober houses located in R-1 residential zones and limits the number of beds in the facilities to seven (six for recovering addicts and one for a house manager), among other rules. After the city makes special-use permits available for pickup early next month, Costa Mesa sober houses will have 90 days to apply for the licenses and one year to abide by the new rules.

Costa Mesa Mayor Jim Righeimer has said he thinks the ordinance strikes a fair balance between the needs of homeowners and recovering addicts. He said the new law will allow well-run sober houses to continue to operate and shut down bad ones, which will not be able to comply with the rules.

The plaintiffs of both suits disagree with that characterization. The second suit claims the ordinance has the effect of indiscriminately limiting sober-living homes “for the purpose and with the effect of excluding, segregating, or steering disabled persons based on their disability.”

Unwarranted inspections

The second suit specifically names Righeimer as someone who campaigned against sober-living homes and who spurred the effort to target the facilities through code enforcement.

That lawsuit also claims that code-enforcement officer Mike Tucker repeatedly harassed residents of Yellowstone’s Boston Way facility and intimidated Yellowstone Executive Director Honey Thames.

According to the suit, Tucker attempted to enter the Boston Way home in February without a warrant. The suit claims he returned on March 12, again without a warrant, but this time with several police officers, who “swarmed the dwelling,” verbally abused residents, and detaining one resident in handcuffs for 20 minutes. Later, the Boston Way facility was issued citations for having eight beds in the home and for an inoperative smoke detector.

The suit states that Tucker executed similar warrantless inspection on several other Yellowstone facilities, and even conducted an unannounced, warrantless search of Thames personal home, later citing her for lacking fire extinguishers.

Tucker declined to comment on the suit Friday.

On Tuesday, Costa Mesa officials served a warrant to inspect a sober-living home in the 600 block of Senate Street and reported finding 18 beds in the two-story, six-bedroom building. Costa Mesa CEO Tom Hatch said the inspection was an example of the city targeting poorly-run sober homes.

Legal costs

If Costa Mesa wants to estimate how much an extended sober-living lawsuit might cost, it needs look no further than its neighbor, Newport Beach.

Seven years ago, Newport Beach approved a zoning ordinance to stop the spread of sober homes within the city. The law successfully drove away most of the recovery facilities, but three sued the city, and Newport Beach has since spent more than $3.6 million in legal fees fighting the cases.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not consider Newport Beach’s appeal of the appellate court ruling that allowed group homes to sue the city. The Supreme Court’s decision will kick the original lawsuit back to trial at the district court level.

David Sheridan, executive director of The Sober Living Network, a fair-housing advocacy nonprofit, said the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Newport Beach does not bode well for Costa Mesa.

“The bad thing for (Costa Mesa) is that the way that appellate decision was rendered, the language will pretty much determine the outcome and (Costa Mesa’s) law will be overturned,” Sheridan said.

Righeimer has said at past council meetings that while he did not want the city to get sued, he did not want to back down from regulating the “overconcentration” of Costa Mesa sober-living homes.

“We don’t want litigation,” Righeimer said, “But if it costs $5 million, we’ll do that to make sure (people’s neighborhoods are safe)… People who operate properly are not the problem. But we hear about a lot of people who don’t.”

Contact the writer: jgraham@ocregister.com or 714-796-7960