Santa Ana Says It May Appeal Ruling on Overcrowding : Ordinance: The city attorney says he will recommend taking the case on occupancy limits to the state Supreme Court.

Hours after learning that a state appeals court had rejected the city’s latest ordinance limiting the number of people who can live under one roof, Mayor Daniel H. Young threw up his hands in frustration.

“In effect, it’s dead,” he announced Thursday evening to neighborhood leaders who have pushed for the ordinance against overcrowded housing.

“We are back to square one with respect to trying to come up with some reasonable standard for occupancy,” Young said.

But with a new day came renewed hope for city officials that the ordinance, approved by the City Council in May, 1991, might have a chance in court after all.

City Atty. Edward J. Cooper, who has directed Santa Ana’s legal battle in a case monitored by other cities across the state, said Friday he will recommend that the City Council appeal its case to the state Supreme Court.

In a strongly worded opinion issued late Thursday, the 4th District Court of Appeal criticized the city for attempting to impose strict housing density requirements that effectively would force larger, poorer families out of their homes.

This was the second time the appeals court struck down Santa Ana’s attempt to control overcrowded housing conditions, which some officials and city leaders believe are turning neighborhoods into slums. The latest ruling was expected to have a rippling effect in other cities across the state that were monitoring the Santa Ana case before imposing their own regulations.

Santa Ana’s latest ordinance essentially allowed five people in an average one-bedroom apartment, compared to 10 people allowed under state housing codes.

Cooper successfully defended the ordinance at the Superior Court level by arguing that the state occupancy code was unconstitutional. Absent a valid law, he said, the state did not “occupy” the issue and cities had the right to set their own standards.

That issue was not considered by the appellate court, Cooper said, and would be one of the points raised in an appeal to the Supreme Court.

In its written opinion, the appeals court said that cities could impose stricter limits only if they could prove they are warranted by changes in topographic, climactic and geographical conditions--criteria that are difficult to meet. Otherwise, the cities are required to follow the state guidelines, the court ruled.

Paul D. Kranhold, assistant director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development, scoffed at the city’s attempt to appeal the case to a higher court.

“That’s like trying to block (Chicago Bulls basketball player) Michael Jordan from a slam dunk,” Kranhold said. “The court decision was boom, boom, boom, right down the line on all the arguments we used against the ordinance.”

The state Housing Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the lawsuit brought by Santa Ana resident Ascencion Briseno. Were the law to be enforced, Briseno’s five-member family would be in violation of the ordinance.

But in addition to the court appeal, city officials said they will continue lobbying the League of California Cities for support of state legislation to change the laws that currently limit the ability of cities to control packed housing.

Mayor Young, however, is not guaranteeing success on that front either.

“The Legislature has shown zero interest in dealing with the issue,” the mayor told the representatives of neighborhood associations. “But maybe--out of frustration in our city and other cities--maybe in the next Legislature we can get some attention to it.”

Councilman Robert L. Richardson said the city’s “education” campaign would begin next week, when state Housing Department director Timothy L. Coyle is taken on a tour of Santa Ana neighborhoods.

“Mr. Coyle does not understand that of the residential acreage in Santa Ana, we have 20,000 people per square mile,” Richardson said. “Our schools, our parks are coming apart at the seams.”

He said it was ironic that the state was encouraging cities to build more housing to relieve overcrowding, but not giving the local governments the tools to prevent the deterioration of the housing stock.

“It’s one more example of why people are fed up with the institutions that are running this state and running this country,” Richardson said. “They are out of touch with what people are dealing with.”