Housing Rights vs. City of Los Angeles
Proposed Rezoning Ordinance

Homeowners are in danger of being denied the use of their properties in long standing traditional ways, and people who share housing costs in duplexes or single family residences in low density residential zones are in danger of being banned from living there. Those who could be affected by this proposed ordinance are students, seniors, friends and roommates, persons with disabilities—anyone renting homes together with more than one lease agreement. The Los Angeles Planning Commission will consider this proposal again on November 4, 2010. Please check this page for location and time information as we receive it.

Details of the proposed zoning changes are outlined in the September 2010 Planning Department staff report, Case Number CPC-2009-800-CA and Council File Number 07-34-27. (Link to staff report) Following is a breakdown of the City’s proposal in three sections:

• Proposed changes and how they would negatively affect renters and rental properties
• Why this proposed ordinance should be defeated
• What you can do about it

Letter of Opposition

Read our letter of opposition sent to the Planning Commission here.

Proposed Changes

Currently there is no restriction on the number of leases or rental agreements for single family residences and duplexes in the City of Los Angeles, but that could rapidly change. This ordinance would reclassify as a boarding house any rental property in single family homes or duplexes in low density residential areas (R1, R2 and RD) with more than one leasing arrangement and ban them from those zones. The City proposes to do this by redefining "family," "single housekeeping unit," "boarding house," and "correctional or penal institution."

Broadening the scope of this ordinance to include all low density residential homes with shared lease agreements in the City is merely a pretext for the original intent to restrict sober living and other housing for persons with disabilities. Plus, the majority of public dialogue supporting this ordinance continues to focus primarily on sober living homes.

• This proposed ordinance sweeps with too broad a brush and with no justification for doing so. The City has provided no supporting evidence that homes with more than one lease are a greater threat to community health and safety than homes that don't have such rental agreements. This proposal also assumes the reverse, that homes in which financial burdens of housing are not shared under separate agreements pose no threat to communities, an equally unsound premise.
• The City of Los Angeles already has nuisance abatement laws and enforcement procedures. If homes with more than one lease are truly nuisances then why haven’t they been held accountable through these provisions? Why take such drastic measures without first fully using the tools the City has to deal with these problems?
• By redefining family, this ordinance ignores the case of City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson in which the California Supreme Court ruled, based on privacy laws, that local governments cannot define family differently for non-related persons than related persons. Furthermore, the City is apparently declaring war on its residents who choose to live together through shared rental agreements or who cannot afford to live any other way..
• The City seeks to redefine family not on the functionality of how people relate to each other in the privacy of their households, but solely on how they pay for their housing. This puts an undue burden on those who cannot afford to live alone, particularly in these harsh economic times in which people are being forced to share housing who never have before.
• The City has not specified how the potentially thousands of residences this ordinance will impact will be identified. Since it has provided no methodology, nor described how one will be developed to identify these homes, how can the City ensure that enforcement will be applied uniformly and not focused primarily on sober living?
• The ordinance is discriminatory against housing for persons with disabilities. The more than two and a half year history of this developing ordinance clearly demonstrates its discriminatory intent to restrict group homes for persons with disabilities, eventually narrowing its focus specifically to sober living. (For an explanation of legal protections for housing for persons with disabilities (see Fair Housing FAQ and 3 Legal Protections.) In the trail of public documentation it is clear that the basis for wanting this restriction is based on neighbors' complaints about sober living. However, the City has offered no justification based on objective evidence that sober living homes overall are more of a threat to community health and safety than any other type of home. In fact, in a January 28, 2010, City Planning Staff Report, explanations were given why the City could not legally restrict sober living homes. (see Jan. 28 2010 staff report, p. 10) Following is an excerpt from that report:
• The more than two and a half year history of this developing ordinance clearly demonstrates its discriminatory intent to restrict group homes for persons with disabilities, specifically focusing on sober living. (For an explanation of legal protections for housing for persons with disabilities see Fair Housing FAQ and 3 Legal Protections.) In the documented trail of public discussion this intent is apparent. However, the City has offered no justification based on objective evidence that sober living homes overall are more of a threat to community health and safety than any other type of home. Furthermore, a January 28, 2010, City Planning Staff Report explains why the City could not legally restrict sober living homes. (See Jan. 28 2010 staff report, p. 10) Following is an excerpt from that report:
  "Staff considered alternative amendments to this definition as a way to regulate sober living homes as unlicensed group residential uses, and found that every alternative definition was fatally flawed. Every alternative considered was illegal, unenforceable, or discriminatory. In particular, some were too broad in their impact, such that several individuals living as roommates would be prohibited. Other definitions, such as ones that require investigation of who uses what rooms or facilities in the household, are unenforceable."

Even though the City has focused its current version of this ordinance on all low density residential homes with shared lease agreements in the City, it is a pretext for the original intent to restrict where sober living and other group housing for persons with disabilities can be located. Furthermore, the majority of public dialogue on this subject continues to focus on sober living homes, not all homes with shared lease agreements.

INFORMATION

For more information on this document or issue, please contact:
Jeff Christensen, Network Project Director ( , phone (310) 924-7155), or
Deborah Parker: (, phone (858) 538-7623), or
visit the Network website at www.soberhousing.net.

This web page is available in a format suitable for printing and for sending as an email attachment. View and download it here.

Some of the links above open PDF files. If you don't have Adobe Reader installed on your computer, you may download it (free) by clicking on the link below (download page will open in a new window):