It’s Round 2 in O.C. Residential Crowding Fight

In what experts consider a test case that could affect the ability of California cities to regulate residential overcrowding, Santa Ana on Wednesday went to court to defend an ordinance that would fine or jail landlords and tenants who let too many people live under one roof.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Santa Ana resident Ascension Briseno, is the second round in a legal battle by civil rights activists who claim the city’s housing regulations illegally discriminate against minority and low- to moderate-income families.

It is a battle that has pitted residents seeking affordable shelter against neighboring homeowners who abhor the problems created by crowded housing.

The latest ordinance would allow the city to limit the number of residents per unit so that no more than five people could live in an average one-bedroom apartment, for example. The council approved the ordinance last spring, but the court prohibited it from taking effect until several legal issues are settled.

A previous ordinance prohibiting residential overcrowding was struck down last fall by an appellate court, which found the city’s interpretation of the state housing code too restrictive. Taking a new tact, the city argued Wednesday before Orange County Superior Court Judge Floyd H. Schenk that the occupancy standard in the state housing code is unconstitutional and therefore leaves cities free to establish their own regulations.

“If the court rules that the state law is unconstitutional,” City Atty. Edward J. Cooper said during a recess, “it will have repercussions throughout the state because other jurisdictions rely on the state law and have no other occupancy laws.”

But Briseno’s attorney, Richard L. Spix of the immigrant rights group Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, told the court that state guidelines should apply and that the city failed to follow proper procedures before setting occupancy limits. Those modifications, he added, can be made only if they are warranted by changes in geographic, topographic or climatic conditions.

“I have a high degree of confidence in the merits of the legal position that you do not just get to change the (state) uniform codes willy-nilly in the state of California,” Spix said.

The city is arguing that the state housing code is unconstitutional because only the California Building Standards Code may regulate those issues.

In documents filed with the court, Cooper also states that in a 1980 Santa Barbara case, the court invalidated a zoning ordinance occupancy standard that defined a “family” as “either related persons living together as a single household unit in a dwelling unit or a group of not to exceed five persons.”

Because that wording has continued to be used in setting state occupancy standards, Cooper argued that the housing code is therefore unconstitutional.

With final arguments set for next Tuesday, the one-day trial bypassed expected testimony from witnesses and boiled down to legal arguments by both attorneys.

The problem of residential overcrowding is critical in Santa Ana, where two or three families or groups of adults sometimes crowd into a single residence. According to the 1990 Census, Santa Ana has 17% of all Orange County households with seven or more people, compared to a countywide average of 4%.

But residential overcrowding also exists in pockets of other cities which also have seen an increase in low-income families.

Cooper said officials from other cities, including Anaheim, Dana Point, Garden Grove and Orange, have contacted his office for updates on Santa Ana’s case.

Throughout the county, neighborhood preservationists have pushed for tighter controls on residential overcrowding, claiming that densely populated areas place stress on police, fire, sewer and other city services and breed criminal activity.

In the first lawsuit filed on Briseno’s behalf, the 4th District Court of Appeal last fall overturned the city’s regulations and required that rooms other than bedrooms be counted as sleeping quarters, effectively allowing up to 10 people to live in a one-bedroom apartment. Previously, city officials said that only bedrooms could be counted as sleeping quarters.

The city responded with a new ordinance now being challenged in court--the first of its kind in Orange County--which sets square-footage requirements for “living space,” excluding stairwells, halls, closets, bathrooms and kitchens. Each unit with two occupants must have at least 150 square feet of living space, and another 100 square feet for each additional resident.

City staffers estimated that under the new law, up to five people can live in an average one-bedroom apartment. But Spix has argued that typical one-bedroom apartments in blue-collar neighborhoods are smaller so that only four people would be allowed.

If the ordinance were to be strictly applied, Briseno, his wife and three children would be in violation because their apartment has about 395 square feet of livable space, but the new law would require 450 square feet.

At the start of the current trial, Spix tried to introduce facts from the first case, charging that a 1987 rent strike by apartment residents sparked the city’s efforts to pass an overcrowding ordinance. Following the appellate court’s decision, Spix told the judge, the City Council approved the new ordinance in an attempt to discriminate and retaliate against tenants.

But after wrangling with Cooper over the relevancy of the charges, Spix shortened his legal fight to one point: that the city’s ordinance had not followed state guidelines to change the state housing code, which he believes is valid.

“He (Spix) had no basis of any kind to show a discrimination or conspiracy (by the council) and he realized that,” Cooper said after the hearing.

Spix said he decided to drop most of his case to focus on the key issue.

“I think that is really the most instructive position for the local jurisdictions like Dana Point,” Spix said, referring to a city that recently approved an overcrowding ordinance with an eye on the Santa Ana case. “If we have a decision on that issue, one way or the other, cities are going to cave in, or go forward, depending on which way it goes. We need to know what the rules of the game are.”

Battle Over Overcrowding

Santa Ana is in a court battle with civil rights activists once again over its attempt to curb overcrowded conditions within the city. Last year, a state appellate court threw out Santa Ana’s interpretation of state residential occupancy limits. Armed with a new ordinance, the city finds itself being sued again by the same activists.

ROUND ONE: FAULTY INTERPRETATION

ACTION: The state Uniform Housing Code requires that a certain amount of space be available per resident for “sleeping areas,” and Santa Ana measured space only within bedrooms to determine this area.

RESULT: Civil rights activists sued, and the appellate court ruled that the city should count all rooms in a home, such as dining rooms and living rooms, to determine “sleeping area.”

ROUND TWO: NEW RULES

ACTION: Following the court’s decision, the city adopted an ordinance that counts all rooms, excluding closets, stairwells, halls, bathrooms and kitchens. However, the city’s minimum square footage requirements are more strict than the state’s.

RESULT: Activists filed a second lawsuit. Santa Ana now argues that cities can set their own residential overcrowding restrictions because the state housing code is unconstitutional.

HOW CROWDED IS CROWDED?

Santa Ana’s proposed ordinance would allow fewer people than the numbers set by the Appellate Court.

Type Residents Residents Residents Allowed of Allowed Allowed by Appellate Apartment Under Old Code Under Proposed Code Court Ruling One-bedroom 4 5 10 Two-bedroom 7 6 11 Three-bedroom 10 7 13

Source: City of Santa Ana