In the ongoing battle between the City of Malibu and its many alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers, the city has just suffered a major setback, but the fight is far from over.
An L.A. Superior Court Judge issued a tentative ruling last Tuesday, July 7, throwing out two of the four charges the City of Malibu leveled against the State of California and Passages Malibu, a rehabilitation facility located in the Sycamore Canyon neighborhood. The judge’s tentative ruling is that the City of Malibu’s claims against the State and Passages are inadequate.
The suit, which was first filed in February, came after Department of California Health Services (DCHS) staffers went to visit the rehabilitation facility and determined it complied with state regulations, a decision the City of Malibu found unconscionable.
It is unclear if and when an appeal of the judge’s tentative decision, which is expected to be finalized and published by mid-August, will be filed by the city.
“We have until probably early October to decide whether or not to appeal,” City Attorney Christi Hogin said.
The conflict between Passages and the City of Malibu has been ongoing since 2006. Malibu officials and residents feel the facility is operating outside of the law and disrupting the calm of Sycamore Canyon, since its many buildings are all under the same direction and, according to the city, operate as one large hospital-like complex.
State officials pursued the violation issued by the city, making an unannounced visit to the rehab complex in September 2014 and viewing seven of its eight buildings.
Following discontent over the state’s decision, Hogin and her associate, Shahiedah Coates, filed the suit on behalf of the City of Malibu. In the petition, Hogin and Coates point out that the rehab facility itself claims it operates as one single unit.
“Passages Malibu describes itself as the ‘number one rehab in the world’ whose ‘flagship drug and alcohol treatment center is in Malibu, California on a 10-acre property that features a breathtaking Pacific Ocean view, tranquil setting, and palatial estates that house [its] residential and treatment facilities,’” the petition states.
Based on the judge’s tentative ruling, the City of Malibu does not have the power to block this facility, even if the facilities are operating outside of their intended use. Additionally, the judge tentatively ruled that courts cannot overstep their bounds and police the discretion of state regulators.
“The courts generally do not become involved in the semantic thicket of attempting to ascertain where the discretion ends and a mandatory duty begins,” the tentative ruling states.
Councilmember Lou La Monte, who has long been opposed to the so-called “hospitalization” of some neighborhoods in the city, spoke of his disappointment over last week’s tentative ruling, but is far from giving up the fight.
“Ultimately, what’s happening is wrong, and we’ve got to find a way to correct it, and whether it’s with the courts or the legislature,” La Monte said.
When it comes to the legislature, La Monte has made headway in promoting a resolution that would urge “the state legislature to enact legislation that empowers local government to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods consistent with state policy, re: group homes,” according to the text of the document.
The resolution, which in May was unanimously passed by the over 70 California cities who make up the California Contract Cities Association, is in the process of being reworked and sent before the League of California Cities, a group whose membership tops 450 cities.
“We think that will ultimately give us a little more credence with legislators, because legislation is the only way right now to make this equitable for not only the patients but the neighbors,” La Monte said. The resolution urges lawmakers to enforce tighter regulations over both sober living houses and rehabilitation facilities.
La Monte expressed confidence that the will of the City of Malibu would be done, one way or another.
“Eventually, this is going to be resolved,” La Monte said.
Hogin, though, said the setback is a blow to Malibu and other similar communities.
“Not just Malibu — it’s a major setback for California cities if state bureaucrats, through their mistaken licensing, can unilaterally change the character of an area,” Hogin said. “That’s a huge setback for all California cities.”