Overcrowding Ruling Won’t Be Reviewed : Law: The state Supreme Court refuses to hear Santa Ana’s appeal of lower court decision banning the city from putting strict limits on occupancy.

SANTA ANA — Despite pleas from as many as 60 California cities, the state Supreme Court has declined to review a lower court opinion that barred Santa Ana officials from using residential occupancy limits to combat the problems of overcrowded housing.

“We’re very, very disappointed the Supreme Court did not grant our petition” to review the case, Santa Ana Assistant City Atty. Robert Wheeler said Monday. “We think (the overcrowding issue) is a statewide problem.”

Wheeler said city officials haven’t decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The state high court last Friday refused to hear the city’s appeal of a ruling that struck down a controversial Santa Ana ordinance that attempted to put strict limits on the number of people permitted to live in a residence.

Officials from cities throughout the state--many of them frustrated over previous failed attempts to outlaw residential overcrowding--had sent letters to the court supporting Santa Ana’s law.

The measure was opposed, meanwhile, by the state’s housing department and many community activists.

By denying a review of the case without comment, the state Supreme Court made the 4th District Court of Appeal’s published opinion a legal precedent, meaning it can be used to decide future disputes over occupancy limits.

The appellate opinion, which was issued last May, said that the Santa Ana law went beyond state housing standards.

Presiding Justice David G. Sills, who wrote the 4th District opinion, said the city’s law “would criminalize a level of occupant density which the state has determined is safe.”

Under state guidelines, 10 people are permitted to live in an average-size, one-bedroom apartment. The Santa Ana ordinance set the occupant level at five people for an average, one-bedroom apartment.

Attorney Richard Spix, who challenged the city’s law on behalf of Santa Ana resident Ascension Briseno, said he was happy that the Supreme Court denied the city’s petition.

Spix said that if the Santa Ana law had been upheld, it would have had a devastating effect on low-income families needing affordable housing. He added that the ordinance probably would have forced many families out of their homes.

Timothy L. Coyle, director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development, said he too was pleased with the court’s denial.

“I think it makes it clear that we don’t solve affordable housing problems with arbitrary local legislation,” Coyle said. “There are more responsible ways in which to deal with housing problems.”

Coyle said he hoped the court’s stance would deter other cities, including Orange and Dana Point, from pushing similar occupancy legislation.

Dana Point, in fact, is scheduled to go to court today to ask that a similar lawsuit challenging a similar law be dismissed, Spix said.

“Given what the Supreme Court has done, I don’t think (Dana Point is) going to have much luck,” he said.

The problem of residential overcrowding is critical in Santa Ana, where two or three families or groups of adults sometimes live into a single residence in order to afford the rent.

According to the 1990 Census, the city has 17% of all Orange County households with seven or more people, compared to a countywide average of 4%.

Santa Ana officials have described their occupancy ordinance as a well-intentioned attempt to improve and protect the quality of life for all city residents.

Opponents of the law, however, charged that it unfairly discriminated against children, minorities and large families in need of affordable housing.

Resident Briseno, who lives in a one-bedroom Santa Ana apartment with his wife and three children, filed his lawsuit in 1991 after his landlord allegedly tried to have him evicted for overcrowding, Spix said.

After a trial in October, 1991, Orange County Superior Court Judge Floyd H. Schenk ruled in favor of Santa Ana, finding that the ordinance was not illegal.

But his decision was immediately appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeal, where justices overturned the law.