August 29, 2014 – Daily Brief

By Josh Premako

Not-So-Happy Valley: Some residents of Newhall's Happy Valley neighborhood aren't exactly fans of a sober living home that's been operating there, and which is reportedly seeking licensing. KHTS
Charter Bill Moving Along: A bill that would slap restrictions on charter schools operating outside the boundaries of the district that approved their charter is heading to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk. Proponents of the bill have pointed to Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District, which has chartered 21 schools in the past two years, nine of which are outside district boundaries. KHTS The Signal
There's a Checkpoint, Charlie: The SCV Sheriff's Station is kicking off Labor Day weekend with a DUI checkpoint somewhere in the SCV tonight. The Signal
This Should Upset You: If I, a civilian, was texting while driving, drifted into a bike lane and hit and killed a cyclist, I would be in for a world of legal pain. But according to the county DA, if a sheriff's deputy is typing on their onboard computer while driving, drifts into a bike lane, and hits and kills a cyclist, there's no need to press charges. This is a clear example of changes to the law we should be pushing for. LA Observed Daily News
You Can Totally Trust TMZ, Right? So, a woman realizes her Simi Valley hotel neighbor is an MMA fighter wanted for allegedly severely beating his girlfriend. She reports him, and TMZ, that bastion of journalism, tells her there's a $20,000 reward, which she says "Give to the SCV Domestic Violence Center." No sign of the reward yet, however. The Signal
Are You Prepared?: The city is hosting several different emergency preparedness classes and seminars, perhaps a good thing here in earthquake country. KHTS
Are You Ready for Some Gridlock?: AAA is predicting some of the thickest Labor Day weekend traffic in several years, so you might want to just stay around town. Also, the CHP is bringing their friend Max Enforcement to town for the holiday weekend. The Signal
Speaking of Labor Day...: Not from 2014, but a few facts you may or may not have known about Labor Day. Time
In Case You Were Wondering: A quick list of what's closed on Labor Day. Daily News

Comments (3)

Coastal SageFriday, August 29th, 2014 at 1:34 pm

The residents of Happy Valley find themselves the victims of California's as-usual out of control Legislature, which is heavily influenced by business lobbyists and wacko-do-gooders who support the existence of all sorts of "group homes". Historically, the Legislature rarely if ever pays any attention to what taxpayers and voters actually want. There are two separate statutory schemes which seemingly interfere with the ability of individual homeowners and their homeowners associations to enforce CC&R or deed restriction provisions which provide that the operation of businesses within a single family residential community are not allowed. (The issue of what ordinances the City of Santa Clarita can and cannot enforce are entirely separate. In other words, under certain circumstances which are far to complicated to write about here, a city can enforce business permitting requirements relating to "group homes" and in other circumstances it cannot.) In 1993, the Legislature amended provisions of the Government Code which would prohibit HOA's or individual homeowners from enforcing CC&Rs or deed restrictions designed to keep "group homes businesses" out of single family residential neighborhoods. There are constitutional problems with the Legislature "impairing" contracts, which are briefly discussed below. The voters and taxpayers objections to the 1993 amendments were that "group homes" could be providing residences for people who had a history of engaging in criminal behavior which is arguably caused by a psychological disability. As a result, Government Code Section 12955.3, which is part of the "no-city-discrimination-against-group-homes-for-the-disabled" legislation provides: "For purposes of this part, "disability" includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental disability as defined in Section 12926." Government Code Section 12900 provides: "This part [Part 2.8] may be known and referred to as the "California Fair Employment and Housing Act." Government Code Section 12955 and 12955.6 (part of the Part) prohibits discrimination through the enforcement of restrictive covenants prohibiting group homes for the "disabled". In 1993 the Legislature amended Government Code section 12955 to provide: "It shall be unlawful,,,To discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, or ancestry. Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants..." In 1993 the Legislature also amended Government Code Section 12955.6 provide: "Any state law that purports to require or permit any action that would be an unlawful practice under this part shall to that extent be invalid." (Stats. 1993, ch. 1277, § 5.5.) However, Government Code Section 12926 [also part of the Part] which defines the term "disability" provides at Sections 12926(j) and 12926(m) state that not all mental or physical disabilities come within the ban: (j) "Mental disability" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:..."Mental disability" does not include sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs. (m) "Physical disability" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:...(6) "Physical disability" does not include sex ual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs. In plain English, drunks are protected, druggies and gamblers are not. The Santa Clarita press has not actually quoted the text of the Happy Valley deed restrictions or CC&Rs. If they DO prohibit the operation of businesses in the community, "Valley Recovery Center" has made an admission of fact on their website which may provide Happy Valley homeowners and the City a grounds to limit who can be treated at the house. Affected home owners and the City staff to do a screen capture of the center's website: http://valleyrecoveryandtreatment.com/ On its home page the business claims that it is an "Alcohol, Drug & Gambling Treatment Center", and on tabs on the website the business claims it provides "Drug Detox", "Prescription Drug Detox", "Drug Rehab" and "Gambling Rehab". Apparently the group home operator has admitted that it does not have a state license to be a "community care facility", yet in claiming to provide detox and rehab to the group home's residents, the business admits it is providing "care". California Health & Safety Code Section 1503.5(b) provides: "No unlicensed community care facility, as defined in subdivision (a), shall operate in this state." The scam often pulled by commercial group home operators is to claim that all of their residents/patients are alcoholics as well as drug addicts or compulsive gamblers. Extremely aggressive homeowners associations combat that claim by suing both the business operator and the individual residents of the group home, forcing the disclosure of their medical records through discovery, to prove that the residents are "alcoholics". Those medical records often show no history of alcoholism (until the group home operator needed to invent it) but, instead, the medical records show the resident's problem is drug addiction. When potential residents or actual residents of group homes discover that they will be sucked into the litigation machine, and their medical records made available to the lawyer for the complaining homeowners, most residents of high-priced group homes quickly move away. The California Legislature has seriously stacked the deck against home owners enforcing their deed restrictions/CC&Rs, with the Court of Appeal putting the icing on the cake. In a 1997 California Court of Appeal case called Hall v. Butte Home Health 60 Cal. App. 4th 308; 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 246 the Court overturned a trial court verdict which had enforced against a group home for senior citizens CC&Rs/deed restrictions which had prohibited the operation of businesses in the neighborhood. The home owners claimed at trial and on appeal that their CC&Rs/deed restrictions were exempt from the Legislature's actions because they were executed and recorded before January 1, 1979. The Court of Appeal said "No they're not". The homeowners then tried to argue that the California law violated the Federal Constitution's prohibition on statutory impairment of private contracts, on a claim that the deed restrictions /CC&Rs were private contracts. The Court of Appeal danced around that argument as well, but in so doing left a paper trail (quoted below) showing what the home owners would have to prove, factually, to form the basis of trying to make an 'unconstitutional impairment of contracts' argument. That Court of Appeal opinion text shows what the Happy Valley home owners should be working on now, in terms of documenting how the business-operated group home for drug addicts and compulsive gamblers is damaging the economic interests and safety of the Happy Valley home owners: "The record is devoid of evidence that plaintiffs have suffered anything more than a minimal alteration of what is assuredly a long-standing, beneficial property right. The stipulated facts fail to show that suspension of the Shirley Park restrictive covenants to accommodate defendant's six-person residential care facility has had any discernible impact on plaintiffs' property rights. No manufacturing or sales occur at the facility, and no signs or billboards announce the facility's presence. The home is maintained in a manner visually consistent with the single-family character of the subdivision. There is no evidence the operation of the facility has had any effect on property values in the area, nor is there any evidence the quality of life in the Shirley Park subdivision has been degra

Coastal SageFriday, August 29th, 2014 at 1:42 pm

So Happy Valley residents, the Court of Appeal has told you what you have to prove factually, and what your lawyer has to argue in terms of legal theories, to at least limit the operation of this group home to "alcoholics only". Obviously, if there are serious personal injury auto collisions involving residents of the group home, either inside the community or immediately outside of it, those facts would be relevant. Drug arrests involving group home residents inside or outside of Happy Valley would be relevant. Telephone calls by group home residents to bookies, if they were discovered, might be relevant. Study the case law, apply the statutory provisions which say that drug addicts and compulsive gamblers are not classified as physically disabled or mentally disabled, and collect evidence. Remember that if you make a written demand on your HOA to enforce the "no businesses" provisions of your deed restrictions/CC&Rs, they might be worded in such a way that you can enforce them as an individual, assuming that you have credible evidence such as a Happy Valley home seller disclosing the existence of the group home for drug addicts and compulsive gamblers to potential home buyers, and the potential home buyers walking away. California Health & Safety Code Section 1503.5(b) provides: "No unlicensed community care facility, as defined in subdivision (a), shall operate in this state." That is a law which the City should and the affected homeowners association could seek to enforce, right now, through a lawsuit for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief...assuming the City Council cared enough about the city's taxpayers and voters to spend the money to do so. If the City Council does not do so now, I suspect Santa Clarita's neighborhoods could be over-run by those in the detox and treatment business, because Santa Clarita will get a reputation "in the industry" that local government leaves illegally unlicensed facility operators alone. In essence, if the City "closed the barn door before the horse was stolen" they might get lucky and obtain, through discovery, the business' documents which would help prove that those people living in the unlicensed detox and treatment facility include people with drug addiction and gambling addiction, which are not "protected disabilities" under the California laws mentioned above.

MyEyesHurtFriday, August 29th, 2014 at 8:13 pm

My eyes hurt. Thanks.

Coastal SageFriday, August 29th, 2014 at 1:34 pm
The residents of Happy Valley find themselves the victims of California's as-usual out of control Legislature, which is heavily influenced by business lobbyists and wacko-do-gooders who support the existence of all sorts of "group homes". Historically, the Legislature rarely if ever pays any attention to what taxpayers and voters actually want. There are two separate statutory schemes which seemingly interfere with the ability of individual homeowners and their homeowners associations to enforce CC&R or deed restriction provisions which provide that the operation of businesses within a single family residential community are not allowed. (The issue of what ordinances the City of Santa Clarita can and cannot enforce are entirely separate. In other words, under certain circumstances which are far to complicated to write about here, a city can enforce business permitting requirements relating to "group homes" and in other circumstances it cannot.) In 1993, the Legislature amended provisions of the Government Code which would prohibit HOA's or individual homeowners from enforcing CC&Rs or deed restrictions designed to keep "group homes businesses" out of single family residential neighborhoods. There are constitutional problems with the Legislature "impairing" contracts, which are briefly discussed below. The voters and taxpayers objections to the 1993 amendments were that "group homes" could be providing residences for people who had a history of engaging in criminal behavior which is arguably caused by a psychological disability. As a result, Government Code Section 12955.3, which is part of the "no-city-discrimination-against-group-homes-for-the-disabled" legislation provides: "For purposes of this part, "disability" includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental disability as defined in Section 12926." Government Code Section 12900 provides: "This part [Part 2.8] may be known and referred to as the "California Fair Employment and Housing Act." Government Code Section 12955 and 12955.6 (part of the Part) prohibits discrimination through the enforcement of restrictive covenants prohibiting group homes for the "disabled". In 1993 the Legislature amended Government Code section 12955 to provide: "It shall be unlawful,,,To discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, or ancestry. Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants..." In 1993 the Legislature also amended Government Code Section 12955.6 provide: "Any state law that purports to require or permit any action that would be an unlawful practice under this part shall to that extent be invalid." (Stats. 1993, ch. 1277, § 5.5.) However, Government Code Section 12926 [also part of the Part] which defines the term "disability" provides at Sections 12926(j) and 12926(m) state that not all mental or physical disabilities come within the ban: (j) "Mental disability" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:..."Mental disability" does not include sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs. (m) "Physical disability" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:...(6) "Physical disability" does not include sex ual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs. In plain English, drunks are protected, druggies and gamblers are not. The Santa Clarita press has not actually quoted the text of the Happy Valley deed restrictions or CC&Rs. If they DO prohibit the operation of businesses in the community, "Valley Recovery Center" has made an admission of fact on their website which may provide Happy Valley homeowners and the City a grounds to limit who can be treated at the house. Affected home owners and the City staff to do a screen capture of the center's website: http://valleyrecoveryandtreatment.com/ On its home page the business claims that it is an "Alcohol, Drug & Gambling Treatment Center", and on tabs on the website the business claims it provides "Drug Detox", "Prescription Drug Detox", "Drug Rehab" and "Gambling Rehab". Apparently the group home operator has admitted that it does not have a state license to be a "community care facility", yet in claiming to provide detox and rehab to the group home's residents, the business admits it is providing "care". California Health & Safety Code Section 1503.5(b) provides: "No unlicensed community care facility, as defined in subdivision (a), shall operate in this state." The scam often pulled by commercial group home operators is to claim that all of their residents/patients are alcoholics as well as drug addicts or compulsive gamblers. Extremely aggressive homeowners associations combat that claim by suing both the business operator and the individual residents of the group home, forcing the disclosure of their medical records through discovery, to prove that the residents are "alcoholics". Those medical records often show no history of alcoholism (until the group home operator needed to invent it) but, instead, the medical records show the resident's problem is drug addiction. When potential residents or actual residents of group homes discover that they will be sucked into the litigation machine, and their medical records made available to the lawyer for the complaining homeowners, most residents of high-priced group homes quickly move away. The California Legislature has seriously stacked the deck against home owners enforcing their deed restrictions/CC&Rs, with the Court of Appeal putting the icing on the cake. In a 1997 California Court of Appeal case called Hall v. Butte Home Health 60 Cal. App. 4th 308; 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 246 the Court overturned a trial court verdict which had enforced against a group home for senior citizens CC&Rs/deed restrictions which had prohibited the operation of businesses in the neighborhood. The home owners claimed at trial and on appeal that their CC&Rs/deed restrictions were exempt from the Legislature's actions because they were executed and recorded before January 1, 1979. The Court of Appeal said "No they're not". The homeowners then tried to argue that the California law violated the Federal Constitution's prohibition on statutory impairment of private contracts, on a claim that the deed restrictions /CC&Rs were private contracts. The Court of Appeal danced around that argument as well, but in so doing left a paper trail (quoted below) showing what the home owners would have to prove, factually, to form the basis of trying to make an 'unconstitutional impairment of contracts' argument. That Court of Appeal opinion text shows what the Happy Valley home owners should be working on now, in terms of documenting how the business-operated group home for drug addicts and compulsive gamblers is damaging the economic interests and safety of the Happy Valley home owners: "The record is devoid of evidence that plaintiffs have suffered anything more than a minimal alteration of what is assuredly a long-standing, beneficial property right. The stipulated facts fail to show that suspension of the Shirley Park restrictive covenants to accommodate defendant's six-person residential care facility has had any discernible impact on plaintiffs' property rights. No manufacturing or sales occur at the facility, and no signs or billboards announce the facility's presence. The home is maintained in a manner visually consistent with the single-family character of the subdivision. There is no evidence the operation of the facility has had any effect on property values in the area, nor is there any evidence the quality of life in the Shirley Park subdivision has been degra
Coastal SageFriday, August 29th, 2014 at 1:42 pm
So Happy Valley residents, the Court of Appeal has told you what you have to prove factually, and what your lawyer has to argue in terms of legal theories, to at least limit the operation of this group home to "alcoholics only". Obviously, if there are serious personal injury auto collisions involving residents of the group home, either inside the community or immediately outside of it, those facts would be relevant. Drug arrests involving group home residents inside or outside of Happy Valley would be relevant. Telephone calls by group home residents to bookies, if they were discovered, might be relevant. Study the case law, apply the statutory provisions which say that drug addicts and compulsive gamblers are not classified as physically disabled or mentally disabled, and collect evidence. Remember that if you make a written demand on your HOA to enforce the "no businesses" provisions of your deed restrictions/CC&Rs, they might be worded in such a way that you can enforce them as an individual, assuming that you have credible evidence such as a Happy Valley home seller disclosing the existence of the group home for drug addicts and compulsive gamblers to potential home buyers, and the potential home buyers walking away. California Health & Safety Code Section 1503.5(b) provides: "No unlicensed community care facility, as defined in subdivision (a), shall operate in this state." That is a law which the City should and the affected homeowners association could seek to enforce, right now, through a lawsuit for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief...assuming the City Council cared enough about the city's taxpayers and voters to spend the money to do so. If the City Council does not do so now, I suspect Santa Clarita's neighborhoods could be over-run by those in the detox and treatment business, because Santa Clarita will get a reputation "in the industry" that local government leaves illegally unlicensed facility operators alone. In essence, if the City "closed the barn door before the horse was stolen" they might get lucky and obtain, through discovery, the business' documents which would help prove that those people living in the unlicensed detox and treatment facility include people with drug addiction and gambling addiction, which are not "protected disabilities" under the California laws mentioned above.
MyEyesHurtFriday, August 29th, 2014 at 8:13 pm
My eyes hurt. Thanks.