Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc.

No.

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1994

CITY OF EDMONDS,

Petitioner,

V.

WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL,

et al.,

Respondents.

Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE

WASHINGTON IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

Gregory G. Schrag

City Attorney

21907 64th Avenue W. Suite 370

Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

(206) 776-7386

Counsel of Record, Attorney for

Amicus Curiae City of Mountlake

Terrace, Washington

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED 6/13/94

CERTIORARI GRANTED 10/31/94

aBCD Legal Printers. Seattle Washington

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF

AMICUS CURIAE ....++-s

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..... =.

ARGUMENT * . * > >. > * * >. > ad

I. EDMONDS’ SINGLE FAMILY

ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDES

A REASONABLE LOCAL

RESTRICTION ON THE MAXIMUM

NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS

PERMITTED TO OCCUPY A

DWELLING AND CONSEQUENTLY

IS EXEMPT, BY THE ACT’S

OWN CLEAR LANGUAGE, FROM

THE FHAA PROVISIONS ...

CONCLUS I ON * * 7 . 7 . . . * 7

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

City of Memphis v. Greene,

608 0.8. BOO CHGUES 2-0 08th ewe

Moore v. City of East Cleveland,

431 Woe 494 (1977) > . *. * * i * >.

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas,

416 U.S. 1 (1974) . > 7 . . >. . >. >.

Statutes

ECDC Section 21.30.010 ....s.ee-.

42 U.S.C. Section 3607(b)(1) ....

Rules

Supreme Court Rule 37.5 ....+.+s+ +s

United States Constitution

Amendment x IV * * * _ > a > > > > . .

Miscellaneous

Mountlake Terrace City Code

Section 103.2439) . «= cceseeees

No. 94-23

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1994

WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL,

et al...

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The City of Mountlake Terrace,

Washington, as amicus curiae, is a political

subdivision of the State of Washington, and

submits this brief in support of the City of

Edmonds, petitioner. Counsel for amicus

curiae is an authorized law officer of the

City and consent to this submission is not

necessary, however counsel has received

consent from petitioner. Rules of the

Supreme Court of the United States 37.5.

The City of Mountlake Terrace border is

contiguous to its neighbor the City of

Edmonds, and the City of Mountlake Terrace

has adopted substantially the same definition

of family as the City of Edmonds. Mountlake

Terrace City Code, Section 10-3.2(39) defines

family as:

One or more persons related by blood,

marriage, adoption or a group of not

more then six (6) persons not related by

blood or marriage living together in a

single housekeeping unit in a dwelling

unit.

In March 1994, the Oxford House, an

unincorporated association, established a

group home within the city limits of

Mountlake Terrace consisting of residents

unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption,

exceeding the maximum number of unrelated

occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling

located in an area zoned for single family

within the City of Mountlake Terrace. As

appears to be the case in the Edmonds

situation, the Mountlake Terrace occupants

are capable of independent living and

voluntarily live together and operate the

house located within the area zoned single

family residence. Because of the action

initiated by the City of Edmonds and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision,

there has been no enforcement action

commenced against the Oxford House-Mountlake

Terrace. The Mountlake Terrace matter has

been held in abeyance pending final

resolution by this court.

The City of Mountlake Terrace is a small

community consisting of approximately 20,000

residents, has limited resources, and finds

itself now faced with potentially expensive

and time consuming litigation regarding what

constitutes “reasonable accommodations." If

the Ninth Circuit is upheld in its decision,

the City of Mountlake Terrace, as well as

many other cities will be placed in the

position of either redrafting the ordinances

to provide for a maximum number of occupants

on the basis of habitable floor area in a

Gwelling or establishing a fixed maximum

number of occupants without regard to whether

they are related. The former would not

preserve the ability of large families to

live together and the latter is likely to be

subject to challenge as a violation of the

protections afforded by the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The plain language of the FHAA provides

that certain regulations are exempt from

FHAA’s provisions. FHAA’s provisions do not

apply to "reasonable local, state or federal

restrictions regarding the maximum number of

occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling."

42 U.S.C. Section 3607(b)(1). Edmonds’

zoning ordinance, while recognizing the

Fourteenth Amendment protection that is

extended to family, clearly provides for a

reasonable restriction regarding the maximum

number of occupants permitted to occupy a

dwelling. Therefore Edmonds’ zoning

ordinance is exempt from the FHAA’s

provision.

provisions of the Fair Housing Act Amendments

(FHAA). Reasonable local restrictions on the

maximum number of occupants permitted to

occupy a dwelling are expressly exempt from

the FHAA’s purview. 42 U.S.C. section

3607(b)(1). Like the City of Mountlake

Terrace and numerous other communities

throughout the country, Edmonds permits a

maximum number of unrelated persons to live

in a single family dwelling unit within its

city limits. ECDC 21.30.010.

42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(1) specifically and in

plain language exempts from its provisions

reasonable local, state or federal

restrictions regarding the maximum number of

occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.

The City of Edmonds’ ordinance falls within

this statutory exemption under Title 42

U.S.C. 3607(b)({1) since it permits five or

fewer unrelated persons in the City’s single

family residential areas and consequently the

ordinance restricts the maximum number of

occupants as it pertains to unrelated

individuals who may occupy a single family

dwelling. Therefore, if the ordinance is

reasonable, it is exempt from the FHAA. The

fact that the ordinance makes a distinction

based on whether the occupants are related

does not diminish or negate the fact that

there is a clear restriction on the maximum

number of unrelated occupants. The Edmonds

ordinance treats all unrelated individuals

who chose to live toszther in a single family

residential area equally, disabled or non-

@isabled, black or white, male or female,

rich or poor.

The distinction between related and non-

related inhabitants in the Edmonds ordinance

is simply an acknowledgement that the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

extends its protection to the family. The

City of Edmonds’ definition of family follows

the form approved by this court in Village of

Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974).

The ordinance adopted by Edmonds merely

recognizes the ruling as set forth in Moore

v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494

(1977) in extending the benefits and

protections of its single family zone to the

extended family.

The City of Edmonds has a legitimate

interest in preserving and maintaining the

character of its single family areas. The

ordinance is a reasonable restriction on the

maximum number of occupants who may occupy a

Gwelling. As this court has already

recognized, the City may exercise its police

powers to "lay out zones where family values,

youth values, and the blessings of quiet

seclusion and clean air make the area a

sanctuary for people." Village of Belle

Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 at 9. This

legitimate interest in the tranquility of

Single family residential areas has also been

ii |

recognized in City of Memphis v. Greene, 451

U.S. 100 (1981). Because of Edmonds’

recognized legitimate interest in

preserving and maintaining the

family neighborhoods,

establishing,

character of its single

the ordinance is reasonable and since it is a

r

may occupy the dwelling, is exempt from the

FHAA.

CONCLUSION

The City of Mountlake Terrace submits

that the Edmonds zoning ordinance is exempt

from the FHAA’s provisions as 4 reasonable

local restriction regarding the maximum

number of occupants permitted. to occupy 4

dwelling and that the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals should be reversed.

|

10

DATED: December 15, 1994.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory G. Schrag

Counsel of Record

21907 64th Avenue W.,

Suite 370

Mountlake Terrace,

Washington 98043

Telephone (206) 776-7386

Attorneys for Amicus

Curiae, Mountlake Terrace

Washington