Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 22 The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. NINTH CIRCUIT (CALIFORNIA) (09/20/13)—This case ad- dressed the issue of whether the only way a plaintiff (i.e., the party bringing the lawsuit) in an antidiscrimination zoning case may survive summary judgment and bring the case to trial is to identify similarly situated individuals who were treated better than themselves, or whether there are other ways they may demonstrate that intentional discrimination has occurred, such as through direct or circumstantial evidence. The Background/Facts: In 2008, the City of Newport Beach, Cali- fornia, (the "City") enacted an ordinance (the "Ordinance") which had the practical effect of prohibiting new group homes from opening in most residential zones. Group homes are facilities in which recovering alcoholics and drug users live communally and mutually support each other's recovery. Under the Ordinance, even in the few areas where they were permitted to open, new group homes were required to submit to a permit process. Existing group homes also had to undergo the same permit process in order to continue their operations. Prior to the Ordinance's enactment, the City treated group homes as "single housekeeping units." "Single housekeeping units" were gener- ally permitted to locate in all residential zones without any special penuit. The Ordinance's "key innovation" was to amend the definition of "single housekeeping unit" to exclude group homes. This was ac- complished in two critical ways: the amended definition added the requirements that (1) a single housekeeping unit must have a single, written lease; and (2) the residents themselves must decide who will be a member of the household. As a result of those amendments, group homes no longer qualified as "single housekeeping units" because the residents did not sign written leases and were chosen by staff (instead of by each other) to ensure the maintenance of a sober environment. Instead, the Ordinance regulated group homes as "residential care fa- cilities" (i.e., facilities in which disabled individuals reside together but not as a "single housekeeping unit"). As "residential care facilities," group homes faced significant restrictions, including on location. Three group homes operators, as well as several individuals, includ- ing a group home owner and former residents of a group home (collec- tively, the "Group Homes"), sued the City. They alleged that the Ordinance discriminated against them as facilities that provide housing opportunities for disabled individuals recovering from addiction. They alleged that the Ordinance was discriminatory in violation of, among other things, the federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The FHA renders it unlawful "[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, © 2013 Thomson Reuters 3