HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 2 SINGLE FAM DWELL 8-1-83OATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 1, 1983
REPORTS
NO. 2
8-1-83
nter - C om
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
Community Development Department
Regulating Occupancy of Singl'e-Family Dwellings
BACKGROUND
The City Council, at its meeting on July 18, 1983, directed staff to
investigate the legality of limiting or licensing the occupancy of
single-family residences that are utilized as rental property.
Specifically, Council expressed concern regarding single-family dwellings
being utilized by several families unrelated by blood or marriage.
Attached to this Inter-Com is a report from City Attorney, James Rourke,
to the Council, dated July 15, 1980, summarizing a major court case which
restricts local government's ability to regulate occupancy of single-family
dwellings. In the case of the City of Santa Barbara vs. Beverly Adamson,
et. al., the courts determined that cities could not discriminate against
families composed of individuals not related by blood or marriage.
Concerning the issue of licensing the rental of single-family dwellings, it
would be nearly impossible for staff to accurately determine which homes
are owner-occupied and which are not. Present owners of multiple
residential .properties containing four or more non-owner occupants are
required to obtain a City business license.
R£COIdllE#DED ACTION
Receive and file.
DONALD D. LAb(M
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Attachments: Inter-Com from James Rourke, City Attorney, July 15, 1980
BATE:: Duly 15,' 1980
Inter-Corn
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FR0a: :]AMES G. ROURKE, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: CITY'S ABILITY TO LIMIT OCCUPANCY OF R-I RESIDENCES
The question has been posed as to whether the City could limit occupancy
of residences in R-I zones to one "family" as that term has been traditionally
defined, namely, a group generally composed of persons who are relatives by blood
and/or marriage. The traditional definition of a "family" for purposes o! who is
permitted to occupy a residence in an R-I zone includes a) a single person living
alone, b) a married person living alone, c) a married couple, d) a married couple
with one or more of their minor children, e) a married person with one or more of
his or her minor children, f) any of the foregoing categories plus an elderly relative
such as a father, mother, uncle, aunt, etc. (adopted children are considered as the
same as natural children). Thus, all of these groups are relatives by blood and/or
marriage. However, it has not been considered unusual or violative of restrictions
on occupancy-in R-I zones to have some groups composed of persons who are
unrelated by blood or marriage, e.g. a) two unmarried persons of the same sex
living together, b) two unmarried persons of the opposite sex living together (this is
a more recent development), or c) inclusion of a person unrelated by blood o~
marriage living with a traditionally-defined blood and/or marriage-related family.
The Tustin City Code provides in this regard as follows:
a. The R-I zone permits "single family dwellings".
bo
"Single family dwelling" is defined as meaning "a building designed
for, or used to house not more than one family, including all
necessary employees of such family."
"Family" is defined as "one or more persons occupying a premises
and living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a
group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or society house. A family
shall be deemed to include necessary servants."
It is to be noted that this definition of "family" does not refer to a
requirement of a blood or marriage relationship.
The City of ~anta Barbara tried to be more restrictive than the Tustin
City Code and defined "family" as follows.'
"1. An individual, or two (2) or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or legal adoption, living together as a single house-
keeping unit in a dwelling unit.
2. A group of not to exceed five (2) persons, excluding
servants, living together as a sin. gle housekeeping unit in a
dwelling unit."
This Santa Barbara ordinance was challenged and the California Supreme
Court ruled (City of Santa Barbara v. Beverly Adamson, et al., Cai Sup Ct, May
1980) upon the challenge to the ordinance by a group o! twelve adults, unrelated by
blood or marriage, living together in a twenty-four room, ten bedroom, six
bathroom house, owned by one of the members of the group. The occupants are in
their late twenties or early thirties and include a businesswoman, a graduate
biochemistry student, a tractor-business operator, a real estate woman, a lawyer,
and others not related by blood, marriage or adoption.
They chose to reside with each other when the owner of the property
made it known she was looking for congenial persons with whom to share a house.
Since the group formed they have become a close group with social, economic and
psychological commitments to each other. They share expenses, rotate chores and
eat evening meals together. Some have children who regularly visit. Fmotional
support and stability are provided by the members to each other. They enjoy
recreational activities such a.s a trip to Mexico together. They have chosen to live
together mainly because of their compatibility. (All of the foregoing are the
stated facts as set'forth in the opinion rendered by the Court.)
This group contended that they regard their group as a "family" and that
they seek to share the same values as conventionally composed families: The
Supreme Court conceded that laws can be written to protect family life values but
said the situation posed the question as to whether those laws could deny
individuals that are not family members the benefits that family members enjoy.
The Court looked at the California Constitution, Article I which provides
in pertinent part that:
"All people . . . have inalienable rights . . . Among those are
enjoying . . . life and liberty . . . possessing . . . property and
pursuing and obtaining.., happiness and privacy."
The Court further found that the right of privacy is the right to be left
alone and that there is a fundamental and compelling interest which protects the
freedom to associate with people of an individual's own choosing. The Court stated
that this right should only be abridged when there is a compelling public need.
The City of Santa Barbara asserted that there is a compelling pub!lc need
and in support thereof contended:
That the overall intent of the ordinance is to serve the public
welfare, health and safety in a plan for orderly development of the
City.
Page 2.
That another purpose is to establish and maintain a suitable environ-
ment for family li~e in the district and to prohibit commercial
activities not in harmony with a residential area.
That a further purpose is to keep the R-I single family zone a zone
of low density.
The Court looked at those goals and posed its inquiry in the following
question:
"Does the ordinances "rule of five" truly and substantially help
effect these goals?"
In findin§ that it did not, the Court stated that increased transitoriness, noise,
traffic, parldng additions and other land-use related characteristics of the environ-
ment could not be presumed to be based on a lack o! biological or marital relation
among the residents. The Court also held that the possible immorality of the
arrangement could not be inquired into by the City.
Finally, the Court stated that many of the City's goals could be
accomplished by less restrictive means than the rule of five. The Court reaffirmed
that "residential character" can be preserved by restrictions on transient and
institutional uses (hotels, mote[s, boarding houses, etc.). The Court also noted that
noise and morality can be dealt with by enforcement of police power ordinances
and criminal statutes. The Court also remarked that traffic and parking can be
handled by limitations on the number of cars (applied evenly to all households) and
by off-street parking requirements. In summation, the Court stated:
"In general, zoning ordinances are much less suspect when they
focus on a use than when they command inquiry into who are
the users."
Thus, with the above statements, the Court held that the Santa Barbara
group could not be prohibited by the ordinance of the City of Santa Barbara.
The Supreme Court did give. ~assing approval of regulations for singJe
family districts which limit occupants to a "reasonable number of persons who
constitute a bona fide single housekeeping unit", although it did not define what the
reasonable number would be.
It appears that the present Tustin ICily Code provisions are in harmony
with this decision.
3GR:se:D:6/tg/g0
3GR:se:R:7/10/80
IC CC/Family D:2
CC:
Do Bo
Mike Brotemarkle