BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HOUSING & LAND USE COMMITTEE Amended: 3/13/96
Senator Henry Mello, Acting Chairman Set: First
Hearing: 4/15/96
Fiscal: No
Consultant: Yee
AB 616 - Morrow
OCCUPANCY STANDARDS
Background and Existing Law:
In some California cities, large families, multiple
families, and groups of unrelated individuals crowd into
limited housing. Overcrowding places burdens on the
infrastructure and overloads city services, including
police and fire protection. In some cases, overcrowded
homes jeopardize the residentso lives and safety.
The California Code of Regulations, which includes the 1991
Uniform Housing Code, contains residential occupancy
standards. A home must have at least one room of 120
square feet. Additional rooms must have at least 70 square
feet. Two people can occupy each room and for each
additional 50 square feet, an additional person can occupy
the room. The Code does not distinguish between a bedroom,
living room, dining room, and kitchen. All rooms can be
used for sleeping except bathrooms, hallways, closets, and
stairwells.
A city or county can adopt more stringent occupancy
standards but only if it makes express findings that the
changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic,
geological, or topographical conditions.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes
it unlawful to discriminate against any person in any
housing accommodation on the basis of familial status. The
State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)
administers and enforces the FEHA. Generally, DFEH
recognizes an oinformalo occupancy limit of two persons per
bedroom plus one additional person (2+1) for the entire
dwelling unit, but they evaluate each complaint
individually for any intentional discrimination.
AB 616 - 3/13/96 Page 2
The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA)
prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of familial
status. The FHAA expressly does not limit the
applicability of any reasonable occupancy standards adopted
by state and local governments.
Local fire officials say that the 1991 Uniform Housing Code
formula for computing maximum residential occupancy is not
clear. They want to clarify the occupancy standard in
statute.
Proposed Law:
Assembly Bill 616 changes the Uniform Housing Code maximum
occupancy standard by defining the phrase oa room used for
sleeping purposes,o to mean habitable spaces designed and
intended to be used as bedrooms. AB 616 requires that the
Uniform Housing Code occupancy formula apply only to
bedrooms and not to living, dining, and kitchens.
AB 616 also specifies that this standard is not intended to
displace existing occupants and may be applied to occupancy
changes after January 1, 1997.
Argument in Favor:
Dense population. Unable to afford better housing, many
families cram into overcrowded homes. People are sleeping
in bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, and kitchens.
Overcrowding creates problems for neighborhoods:
additional traffic, insufficient parking, exacerbate fire
and police services, and overcrowd schools. Local
officials recognize the resulting health and safety
problems, but they canot adopt more restrictive occupancy
standards. AB 616 makes the statewide residential
occupancy standards stricter by specifying that the maximum
occupancy formula applies only to bedrooms. The standards
will reduce the number of people allowed to live in a home,
thereby reducing overcrowding problems.
Argument Against:
AB 616 - 3/13/96 Page 3
No where to go. The lack of affordable housing makes it
difficult for families to find accommodations, especially
families with limited financial resources. Lower income
households can only afford smaller one, two, or three
bedroom apartments, duplexes, or single family homes. A
drastic change in occupancy standards is inconsistent with
statewide housing policy to promote affordable housing. AB
616 will increase homelessness and exacerbate the housing
shortages statewide. Larger households will find it more
difficult to find adequate housing.
Other Comments:
1. Invalid. City of Santa Ana passed an ordinance
increasing the minimum size of the largest room to 150
square feet and requiring 100 square feet for each
additional occupant. When challenged by an apartment
resident, the Appellate Court ruled that Santa Anaos
ordinance was invalid because the City did not comply with
the statutory procedures (Briseno vs. City of Santa Ana).
Local officials must rely on the statewide occupancy
standard.
2. Inconclusive experiment. In Santa Ana, nine fire
deaths in 13 months resulted from overcrowded units. In
one fire, the Fire Department could not save two children
and one adult who lived in a five-bedroom house occupied by
25 people. Santa Ana officials argue that fire danger
increases when more people and more ostuffo are permitted
in a unit. Crowded dwellings are a fire hazard because
fire spreads faster in rooms with high fuel load conditions
-- mattresses, clothing, furniture, etc. But an experiment
by the Santa Ana Fire Department demonstrated the opposite
because fire in a crowded room did not burn as hot or as
fast as fire in a room more sparsely furnished.
Ironically, the crowded room had too much fuel and not
enough oxygen. Officials concluded that overcrowding is
just one of many factors influencing the speed and spread
of a fire. Ventilation, the size and shape of a room, and
the layout of the furnishings determine how a fire burns.
3. Do occupancy and building standards coincide? Homes
are designed and built to accommodate a limited number of
persons. Overcrowded homes place greater demands on
AB 616 - 3/13/96 Page 4
appliances, electrical, plumbing, and air conditioning
systems. Overusing these systems (beyond their design
capacity) can result in health and safety problems. Is
there enough hot water? Is the sewer line large enough?
Can additional appliances be use without overloading the
electrical system? The Committee may wish to consider if
the proposed occupancy standards coincide with the minimum
building code standards.
4. Fair housing. Both the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act (FEHA) and the federal Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1988 (FHAA) prohibit housing discrimination on the
basis of familial status. Neither law designates a
specific occupancy standard, and the State Department of
Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which administers the
FEHA, does not recognize the Uniform Housing Code occupancy
limits. DFEH uses an oinformalo standard of two persons
per bedroom plus one additional person (2+1) for the entire
dwelling unit and they evaluate each complaint for any
intentional discrimination. If the Committee agrees with
DFEHos 2+1 standard, the Committee may wish to consider an
amendment that would incorporate this standard.
5. Property ownerso decision. Local government officials
say that slum landlords donot care how many people live in
a rental unit as long as they pay the rents. Local
governments want to enforce a reasonable occupancy standard
if a landlord ignores an overcrowding problem that is
detrimental to the tenants or a neighborhood. But property
owners are responsible to keep premises fit for occupancy
and they must pay the cost to maintain the home. The
Uniform Housing Code specifies a occupancy limit but
property owners can impose a stricter occupancy limit if
there is no violation of the FHAA and FEHA. Since property
owners have the financial obligation to maintain the home,
shouldnot they be able to decide how many persons should
occupy a unit?
6. Try and try again. As its basic building and housing
code, California adopts the International Conference of
Building Officials (ICBO) model building code. California
makes changes to the model code to suit the stateos unique
circumstances. Periodically, ICBO reviews proposals to
change the model codes. During the last two years, ICBO
rejected two attempts by the Orange Empire Chapter to
restrict the occupancy standards in the Uniform Housing
AB 616 - 3/13/96 Page 5
Code.
7. Other attempts. AB 2908 (Goldsmith, 1996) allows a
residential property owner to establish a reasonable, non
discriminatory occupancy standard.
SB 1477 (Bergeson, 1994) would have allowed a city or
county to adopt residential occupancy standards that are
more stringent than the 1991 Uniform Housing Code standards
because of local conditions. SB 1477 died in the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
AB 1703 (Goldsmith, 1993) would have allowed rental
property owners to establish occupancy standards. AB 1703
died in the Assembly Housing and Community Development
Committee.
8. Double-referral. The Senate Rules Committee has
directed two policy committees to review AB 616. The
Housing and Land Use Committee hears the bill first, then
it must go to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Assembly Actions:
Housing and Community Development Committee: 6-5
Floor: 41-35
Support and Opposition: (4/10/96)
Support: Alto-Richardson Bay Fire Protection District,
California Apartment Association, California State
Firefighterso Association, Cities of Anaheim, Brea,
Burlingame, Camarillo, Carpinteris, Costa Mesa, Culver
City, Cupertino, Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Hills, La
Palma, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Oxnard, San
Bernardino, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, San Mateo,
Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Seal Beach, Stanton, Stockton,
Vista, and Wasco, City of Fullerton Fire Department, City
of Hayward Fire Department, Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District, County of Tulare, Florin Fire
Protection District, Forestville Fire Protection District,
League of California Cities, League of California
Cities-Orange County Division, Meeks Bay Fire Protection
District, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, Russian
AB 616 - 3/13/96 Page 6
River Fire Protection District, Sanger Fire Department.
Opposition: California Building Officials, Cities of Los
Angeles and San Francisco, Housing California, Protection &
Advocacy, Western Center on Law and Poverty.