Appeals Court Voids Santa Ana Occupancy Law

SANTA ANA —  In a setback to city lawmakers battling overcrowded housing all over California, a state appeals court Thursday struck down a Santa Ana ordinance that imposes strict limits on the number of people who may live in each of its housing units.

In unusually strong language, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal criticized Santa Ana for passing square-footage requirements in May, 1991, that essentially permit only five people to live in an average-size, one-bedroom apartment.

“The city may be disheartened that we have invalidated its ordinance, but doing so saves us from having a curbside seat at the parade of horrors which would otherwise ensue,” wrote Presiding Justice David G. Sills.

Letting the ordinance stand “would criminalize a level of occupant density which the state has determined is safe,” Sills wrote. It also would force larger families out of their homes into communities that follow the state occupancy standard, which permits 10 people in an average-size, one-bedroom apartment, the ruling said..

“This could only result in increased homelessness and exacerbate housing shortages statewide,” the ruling said. The justices added that overcrowding is a serious problem, but is not best solved by “a piecemeal solution” in which each city enacts its own occupancy limits.

The appeals court said Santa Ana erred by failing to make specific findings that climactic, topographical and geographical factors made it necessary to adopt a tougher occupancy standard than California’s. In a footnote, however, the justices said it would be “highly unlikely” that Santa Ana could have succeeded in making such findings, since there is “nothing remarkable” about the city that would warrant a stricter occupancy limit.

The justices certified the ruling for publication, meaning that it can be cited as precedent when similar challenges are brought to court. The cities of Orange and Dana Point recently enacted overcrowding ordinances, as have other towns in California.

The decision was immediately criticized by local lawmakers as a terrible frustration at a time when cities are struggling to vanquish urban ills, including the heavy burden that crowding takes on its parks, law enforcement, traffic and waste disposal facilities.

“This is just another example of how difficult it is today for a city to solve the problems in its communities,” Santa Ana Mayor Daniel H. Young said. “It’s obviously the intent of the court to allow a problem to reach crisis proportions rather than let the city have the tools to solve it.”

Census figures show Santa Ana is the county’s most crowded city. City Atty. Edward J. Cooper said the ordinance was the city’s well-intentioned attempt to improve and protect the quality of life for all Santa Ana residents.

“We’re extremely disappointed with this ruling because it taxes the entire community,” Cooper said. “In terms of our streets, sidewalks, sewers, parking facilities and other things, we’re not set up to accommodate the level of occupancy this court says we must abide by.”

At the same time, the ruling was praised by advocates for low-income residents who would have been displaced by the tightened occupancy rules. Richard L. Spix, the attorney who represented Santa Ana resident Ascension Briseno in a lawsuit attacking the ordinance, was gleeful.

“Let’s just say Mr. Briseno can unpack his bags as well as the 20,000 other families who were potentially criminals under the city’s statute,” Spix said. “The city would have created a new class of illegals: those people who simply happen to have three or four kids and are living in a one-bedroom apartment and dad is working for $4.25 an hour.”

Paul D. Kranhold, assistant director of the state Department of Housing, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Briseno, said Santa Ana’s ordinance would have had an unfair and disproportionate impact on low-income residents, many of whom are Latino immigrants. It also would have shifted an undue burden to surrounding cities, which would have had to absorb those displaced by the Santa Ana law, he said.

The solution, Kranhold said, is to build more housing. But Santa Ana City Councilman Robert L. Richardson disagreed, saying anyone who believes that is “out of touch with reality.” The current state standard has allowed too much crowding, which spills into the schools and into other local services, creating a host of related problems, he said.

Richardson said the city will continue to work with the League of California Cities to amend the state’s occupancy rules.

William O. Talley, city manager of Dana Point, which recently enacted an overcrowding law, said city officials there will assess Thursday’s ruling at their June 9 council meeting before proceeding toward its enforcement. Joanne Coontz, a councilwoman in the city of Orange, which also adopted such a law, said she expects a legal challenge, but is “not afraid of anything.”

Santa Ana tried once before to grapple with the crowding problem by interpreting state housing codes in a way that reduced the permissible number of occupants. But Briseno challenged that in court in 1989 and won. When he challenged the new ordinance in 1991, a judge in Orange County Superior Court ruled against him, finding the state code did not preempt the local ordinance. The appeals court reversed that ruling on Thursday.