State Rejects Santa Ana's Occupancy Restrictions : Housing: The ruling could discourage communities from trying to enact laws that curtail severe overcrowding.

By CARLA RIVERA

Jan. 17, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

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.

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 standards on how many people can live in a dwelling.

The ruling could prove a blow to communities throughout Southern California that are seeking to enact local occupancy laws to crack down on severe overcrowding.

It now leaves the question of how far cities can go in the hands of the 4th District Court of Appeal, 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.

The Santa Ana ordinance, which was to have gone into effect last August, was challenged and upheld by a Superior Court judge but was stayed by the appellate court pending an appeal by housing rights advocates.

It 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.

Critics contend that the measure would have a disproportionate impact on poor and immigrant residents and could increase homelessness.

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 foster severe overcrowding, which in turn leads to increased crime, traffic congestion, litter and other social ills.

But state housing officials said Thursday that the city has failed to prove that current standards jeopardize the well-being of residents.

“The key is that this (state housing code) is a health and safety code,” said Paul Kranhold, assistant director for the Department of Housing and Community Development. “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. Edward J. Cooper said that, to the contrary, the city has presented ample evidence that residents of Santa Ana are being adversely affected under current standards.

“To the contrary, they (state officials) 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.”

The city has already drafted a statute to take to the state Legislature in the event it loses in court, he added.

Cooper maintains that the state housing code is unconstitutional because it includes a definition of “family” that was struck down in a previous court ruling and because it amounts to a building code rather than an occupancy and use code. If the code was ruled 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 department has agreed to change its definition of family , and state officials said they believe that it will make moot the question of the code’s constitutionality.

Kranhold said the state intends its reply to Santa Ana to be used formally as its position in the appellate court case.

“By adopting the (housing) code and going forward with it, we are saying not only to Santa Ana but to the court that this is our position,” he said. “Our hope is that our reply will have some significance in the case.”

Kranhold said the department is also considering filing a supportive brief on behalf of residents challenging the Santa Ana ordinance.

The housing ruling and the upcoming appeals court decision are being widely watched both by officials in other cities who are seeking to emulate Santa Ana’s ordinance and by housing rights advocates who believe that such ordinances are discriminatory.

“The (Housing and Community Development) 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 will press ahead with attempts to enact local overcrowding ordinances. Dana Point, for instance, tentatively approved an ordinance similar to Santa Ana’s this week.

“I’m disappointed in the state’s response but not surprised,” Dana Point Mayor Mike Eggers said. “But we will go forth because I think we don’t have any other options. Residents deserve to have their local governments respond to their local concerns.”