Effort to Tighten Housing Code Fails : Crowding: State authority rejects a Santa Ana proposal to establish more stringent occupancy limits. An appeals court is weighing the matter.
In a ruling that could have wide impact in California’s crowded cities, state housing authorities have rejected a proposal by the city of Santa Ana to set more stringent occupancy limits in the state’s Uniform Housing Code.
The ruling could prove a blow to communities trying to enact local occupancy laws to crack down on severely overcrowded conditions.
The Santa Ana ordinance would impose strict minimum square-footage requirements for apartments and houses, limiting to five the number of people who would be able to live in an average one-bedroom apartment.
City officials say interpretations of current state housing standards would allow as many as 10 residents in such an apartment. They said their own studies have found that such limits permit severe overcrowding which in turn leads to increased crime, traffic congestion, litter and other social ills.
But state housing officials said the city had failed to prove that current standards jeopardize the well-being of residents.
Moreover, in a letter sent to Santa Ana officials this week, the state Department of Housing and Community Development concluded that it does not have the authority to allow the city on its own to adopt stricter local standards.
That leaves the question to the 4th District Court of Appeals, which is considering the constitutionality both of the state’s housing code and of Santa Ana’s local overcrowding ordinance. A hearing in the matter has not yet been set.
A spokesman for the Department of Housing and Community Development said Thursday that the state intends its reply to Santa Ana to be used formally as its position in the court case.
But the spokesman, Paul Kranhold, said the department is also considering filing a supportive brief on behalf of residents who are challenging the Santa Ana ordinance. Critics contend that the measure will have a disproportionate impact on poor and immigrant residents and could increase homelessness.
The ordinance, which was to have gone into effect last August, was challenged and upheld by a Superior Court judge but was stayed pending an appeal by housing rights advocates.
The housing ruling and the upcoming appeals court decision are being widely watched both by officials in other cities that seek to emulate Santa Ana’s ordinance, and by housing rights advocates who believe such ordinances are discriminatory.
“The decision certainly helps our cause and will send a message to other cities” that are considering such ordinances, said Marc Brown, an attorney for the Sacramento-based Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.
However, officials in other cities said they still plan to press ahead with attempts to enact local overcrowding ordinances.
“I’m disappointed in the state’s response but not surprised,” said Dana Point Mayor Mike Eggers. “But we will go forth because I think we don’t have any other options.”
State housing officials said Santa Ana had failed to prove that current standards jeopardize residents’ well-being.
“The key is that this is a health and safety code,” said Kranhold. “If the code impairs the health or safety of anyone, and that is demonstrated to us, then we will change the code. But it was not demonstrated to us in this case.”
Santa Ana City Atty. Ed Cooper asserted Thursday that the city had presented ample evidence that residents of Santa Ana are being adversely affected under current standards.
“To the contrary, they (the state) are the ones that have produced no evidence to support their position,” he said. “But basically the ball is in the court’s hands at this point, unless the Legislature takes some action.”
Cooper maintains that the state housing code is unconstitutional because it includes a definition of family that was struck down in an earlier court ruling, and because it amounts to a building code and not an occupancy and use code. If the code were declared to be a building code, the Department of Housing and Community Development would have no enforcement authority.
But in its one concession to the city, the state agreed to relax its definition of family, and state officials said they believe it will make moot the question of the code’s constitutionality.
