Ruling to Let City Move on Overcrowding : Housing: In a much-watched case, a judge has issued a tentative decision upholding Santa Ana’s ordinance to limit the number of people who can live in one dwelling.
City officials prepared to begin enforcing an ordinance that limits how many people can live under one roof after a Superior Court judge Wednesday tentatively upheld the city law.
In a case that could affect cities across the state, Judge Floyd H. Schenk announced that he had been persuaded by Santa Ana’s argument that the city had a right to enact a residential-overcrowding ordinance because an overriding state law is unconstitutional.
However, Schenk said he would issue a final ruling after studying an additional, last-minute argument presented by attorney Richard L. Spix of the immigrant rights group Hermandad Mexicana Nacional.
“I am delighted,” Mayor Daniel H. Young said after the preliminary ruling. “We have been concerned for some time that we have not had the tools to go after this overcrowding problem. I hope the decision sticks.”
Under the ordinance enacted last spring but held in abeyance pending the court ruling, landlords and tenants who exceed the city’s occupancy limits can be fined or jailed. Up to five people would be allowed in a typical one-bedroom apartment, according to city estimates.
But Spix has argued that apartments in blue-collar neighborhoods are smaller than those studied by the staff, and residents could not meet the minimum space requirements that are set out in the ordinance.
If the judge rules as he has indicated, Spix said that he would probably appeal. Otherwise, he said, “thousands of people lose their homes.”
Councilman John Acosta said the city does not want to leave people homeless but hopes to clean up neighborhoods that have become unmanageable because too many people are living in units too small for them.
“If they cannot find housing in this city,” Acosta said, “they are going to have to look for housing in adjacent cities. It’s unhealthy to live in those kinds of conditions.”
Santa Ana City Atty. Edward J. Cooper said that cities from San Jose to San Diego have watched this case because it could remove legal obstacles that have prevented cities from banning overcrowded residences.
It is an explosive issue fueled by the anger of homeowners who blame the deterioration of their neighborhoods on overcrowded conditions and by the pleas of low-income residents seeking affordable shelter.
The action was brought by Ascencion Briseno, the Santa Ana resident who also lent his name to a previously successful legal challenge of an earlier residential-overcrowding ordinance. He said the ruling would hurt families forced to double up or triple up in small apartments in order to afford the rent.
“They live there out of necessity, not because they want to,” Briseno said.
Spix held out hope that the judge would change his mind. “The fat lady hasn’t sung,” he said.
An appellate court last year struck down the city’s previous residential-overcrowding ordinance because it was too restrictive. The city came back with a revised law and changed its legal strategy.
In the current case, Cooper employed two basic arguments: that the state housing occupancy standards are unconstitutional because only the California Building Standards Code may regulate building and occupancy issues; and that the housing code’s definition of “family” per dwelling unit is identical to language that was declared unconstitutional in a 1980 court case.
Absent a constitutional state housing code, Cooper said, cities are free to set their own standards.
“They (state officials) cannot expect local entities to enforce an unconstitutional law,” Cooper told the court.
But Spix argued that since the state had continued legislating in this area, it had shown an intent to oversee housing standards and cities could not supersede the state’s authority.
The judge agreed to review one more case presented by Spix on that point before issuing a final order.
Assuming that the unconstitutional definition of “family” was never corrected in the codes, Spix also argued: “I don’t think that necessarily means we have to strike that code section from the books in the state of California.”
Santa Ana already has taken the same legal argument to Sacramento, urging the Department of Housing and Community Development not to adopt the 1991 Uniform Housing Code because it is unconstitutional.
In a letter to state officials, Cooper suggested that the occupancy limits in the Santa Ana ordinance be adopted. A public hearing has been set for next week.
Under the new city ordinance, each unit with two occupants must have at least 150 square feet of living space, and another 100 square feet for each additional resident. “Living space” excludes stairwells, halls, closets, bathrooms and kitchens.
The public affairs director for the Apartment Assn. of Orange County, Richard J. Lambros, said that while members support the right of cities to regulate residential overcrowding, they were opposed to the Santa Ana ordinance because it does not specify whether the landlord or tenant is responsible if violations occur.
If an owner leases an apartment and the tenant breaks the lease by allowing more people into the unit, Lambros said, it is the owner who will probably be cited. He added that unless tenants who violate the ordinance are also prosecuted aggressively, tenants will likely move from one complex to the next without penalty.
Assuming that the judge rules in the city’s favor, Jim Lindgren, the city’s building safety manager, said that inspectors are ready to begin enforcing the new law.
“We will proceed just like we do on other aspects of our business,” Lindgren said. “We will act on complaints. The complaints have not stopped. They have been coming in here all along. As soon as we have an effective ordinance, we will start responding to those phone calls.”
Enforcing the Overcrowding Law
Santa Ana code enforcement officers are waiting for final court approval of a new city ordinance that regulates how many people may live in a residence. Under procedures established by the city, inspectors will investigate after complaints from citizens. Specifically: 1) Officers will ask permission from an adult resident to inspect the unit.
2) If entry is denied by a tenant, the city may request permission from the property owner. If the unit is occupied by the owner and violation is suspected, the city will get an inspection warrant and return.
3) Floor space is measured and a formula is used to determine how many people may live there. Officers also will count beds and check for locks the doors of bedrooms that may be used as separate living quarters within a unit.
4) If the number of occupants exceeds the legal limit, a notice of violation will be sent to the owner, with a copy left with the tenants. They will have 30 days to comply.
5) The residence will be reinspected after 30 days. If the problem has not been corrected, the city attorney will send a second warning to comply within two weeks.
6) After two weeks, a supervisor will review the case and may grant more time if the violator is attempting to comply or refer the case to the city attorney for legal action. If found guilty, violators could be fined or jailed.
Source: City of Santa Ana
