Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Page 8 _z_ April 1996 Z.B. A year later, the city's Planning Department conducted a survey to evaluate the probl.~ms associated w~th "m~n~-dorms." M~m-dorms were detached houses in single4family neighborhoods that had so many residents they created prob- lems for neighbors. The Syrvey, which was sent to a random sampling of residents, indicated most of ~he respondents thought there were no mini-dorm problems. Of the people who thought there were problems, most felt they included parking, too many ad~Its for the number of bedrooms available, and lack of proper maintenat~ce. Five years later, the city enacted an ordinance to address nuisance prob- lems allegedly associated with nonowner-occupied rentals. The ordinance said these problems m overcrowding and inadequate l!ving space, lack of on-site and public stree.t parking, excessive noise, litter, and inadequate property main- tenance --- adversely affected the character of one-family residential zones. The ordinance based the allowable number of adult occupants of a rented one- family d~elling on square footage of bedrooms, the number and size of bath- rooms, add the amount of off-street parking. Wheff; enacted, the ordinance's bedroom area restrictions were more pro- hibitive tfian the state Housing Code's standards. In 199.3, the ordinance was amended to conform with the code's standards; however, .the ordinance's occupancy restrictions tied to bathrooms and parking remained. College Area Renters and Landlord Association (CARLA) sued the city. It argued thc ordinance violated the equal protection clause of the state constitu- tion by differentiating between owner- and nonowner-occupied residences. The c~urt found the ordinance violated the equal protection clause and granted C:ARLA judgmen~ without a trial. It found owners and tenants were .[ similarly ~ituated with respect to the overcrowding problem, and that the ordi- nance did inot further or bear a rational relationship to a legitimate or compel- ling state interest. The ciiy appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of CARLA. There ~was no justification for making a distinction between tenant resi- dents and ~wner residents. The o~/dinance's purpose was to address problems associated with over- occupancY~ of detached homes in single-family residence zones. For purposes of controlling overcrowding, owners and tenants were similarly situated because they both qould overcrowd a neighborhood. Imposing occupancy restrictions on only tenant residents was not justified because th~ere was not a sufficient relationship between the nonowner-occu- pied classification and the overcrowding problem. Brisen~ v.' City of Santa Aha, 8 Cal. Rt~tr. 2d 486 (!992). Ewing ~' City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 286 CaI. Rl~tr. 2d 382 (]99]).