Memo on Conditional Use Permit This memora

This memorandum will discuss the possible legal claims the residents of Las Familias de Avenida Guadelupe may have against the City of Chapman regarding the proposed location the Rain Man Rainbow House in their neighborhood. The first part of the memorandum will present the factual background of the case. The second part of the memo will discuss the zoning issues. This section will examine the constitutional issues under both the U.S. and California constitutions, issues under the federal Fair Housing Act, and issues arising out California statutes. The third part of the memo will discuss the issues arising out of an environmental racism argument.

Rain Man Opportunities, Inc., has applied for a conditional use permit from the Chapman City Council to operate a group home for eight adult men with mental disabilities. The proposed home will be located in a neighborhood which has been zoned R-1, for use as single family residential. The definition of an R-1 zone prohibits group homes without a conditional use permit. Such a permit can only be granted or denied on the basis of the following factors: (1) adequacy of the facility for the number of residents and the contemplated uses; (2) adequacy of parking; (3) any threat to the safety or health of the neighborhood residents and the adequacy of safeguards to remove or minimize these threats; (4) the commercial or residential character of the home; and (5) any specific

. . .
e family residential zoning of the Guadelupe Avenue neighborhood can be preserved by denying a conditional use permit to a group home and that such a denial would not be unconstitutional under the federal constitution. However, the situation under the California constitution is not so clear. The California Supreme Court has held that a zoning ordinance restricting residents in a single family residential dwelling to no more than five unrelated persons living as a single housekeeping unit violated state constitutional guarantees to the right to privacy. Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 Cal.3d 123, 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 (Cal. 1980). The court said that the ordinance did not "truly and substantially" help effect the goal of maintaining a residential environment nor did it effect the goal of low density, since it did not restrict the numbers of related residents living together. Furthermore, the city's stated goals could have been achieved through less restrictive means. As with Santa Barbara, the situation in Chula Vista v. Pagard, 115 Cal. App. 3d 785, 171 Cal. Rptr. 738 (4th Dist. 1981), involved an ordinance which distinguished between traditional families and nontraditional ones. The ordinance included within the definition of "f
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
ND Cal, Supreme Court, Las Familias, Guadelupe Avenue, Cal Rptr, City Council, City Chapman, Act FHA, St Louis, Terre Boraas, conditional permit, single family, unrelated persons, zoning ordinance, cal rptr, fair housing, court held, fair housing act, housing act, family residential, city chapman, single family residential, court held zoning, unrelated persons living, city st louis,
Approximate Word count = 3777
Approximate Pages = 15 (250 words per page)