County Pushes for Ambitious Legislative Package in ’86

With a largely successful year just ended, Orange County has opened 1986 by asking California legislators for relief from a barrage of airport noise-nuisance suits, approval of a money-raising scheme to build two new court buildings and a means of financing the $1-billion Santa Ana River flood-control project.

The ambitious package of legislative objectives so far contains 16 new bills and seven left over from the first half of the 1985-86 session.

Most of the bills involve strictly local matters and would have little or no impact outside the county. One significant exception is a measure regarding criminal trials that seems certain to gain mention in this year’s campaign over confirmation of Supreme Court justices.

As legislators returned here last week following a 3 1/2-month recess, lobbyists employed by the county had persuaded lawmakers--members of the Orange County delegation in most cases--to carry all but a handful of the bills the county is sponsoring.

New Objectives in Program

There were some new objectives as well as some familiar ones in the legislative program approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and forwarded to their hired advocates here.

Dennis E. Carpenter, the county’s chief state government lobbyist, said last week the prospects for passage of the major measures sought by the county are good.

To pay for a new Superior Court building and a new Juvenile Court, Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) has agreed to carry a new bill that would allow Orange County to raise fines for parking and traffic infractions.

The measure, which would raise $5 million a year for construction of the two court buildings, represents a significant departure from an approach tried last year that angered officials of virtually all the county’s cities.

The 1985 measure, by Assemblyman Richard Robinson (D-Garden Grove), would have raised courthouse construction money without raising fines. Instead, Robinson proposed to reduce by 5% the cities’ share of money from fines and penalties.

Measure Sparked Protests

Because of protests from the county’s municipalities, the measure never advanced past the first committee to which it was assigned.

Bergeson’s bill, as proposed by the county, would leave city revenues untouched. To finance the new courthouses, it would add $1.50 to each parking fine and a penalty assessment of $1 for each $10 in fines for other traffic offenses.

A typical $30 first-offense ticket for running a red light--which now actually costs $52 because of previously imposed assessments for police training, victim-assistance programs and another court expansion program--would rise to $55.

The Legislature passed similar legislation for San Diego and Santa Clara counties last year.

A hearing is scheduled this week on another major county bill--a measure introduced last year by Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim) that would allow the county to raise money for the proposed Santa Ana River flood-control project through voter-approved “benefit assessments” added to property tax bills.

Between 25% and 35% of the cost of the huge project would have to be raised locally. County officials are hoping for congressional approval in Washington in a matter of days or weeks.

But regardless of what happens in Washington, county officials say they will try to move ahead with Seymour’s bill, which has yet to come up for even a committee vote although it was introduced last March.

The Army Corps of Engineers would like to begin work on the project, expected to take about 20 years, by the end of the decade. The main components of the project would be a new dam on the upper part of the river near Redlands, improvements on the existing Prado Dam, and a variety of improvements on flood channels along the river and along Santiago Creek.

The local share of the proposed project, once estimated at $400 million, could be as low as $250 million if Congress assumes a larger federal share and if a new cost revision by the Corps of Engineers, knocking $200 million off the overall projected cost, holds up.

The measure, which would give the county broad powers to define and create assessment districts, does not go into detail on how the assessments would be imposed. But county officials say assessments would vary.

Varied Assessments

Carl Nelson, public works chief in the county Environmental Management Agency, said, for example, that a homeowner in Fountain Valley would almost surely pay more than a homeowner in Buena Park, where the threat of a severe flood is considerably less. Homeowners in San Clemente, where there will be no direct benefit from the flood control improvements, would probably be assessed nothing, he added.

A recent study estimated that the assessment would be just over $100 a year for a typical home in the highest-risk areas and about $40 annually in areas on the periphery of the flood plain. But those figures are based on cost estimates before the latest revisions and on the assumption that the local share of the project will be 35%. County administrative analyst Patti Gorsica said the actual assessments might therefore turn out to be somewhat lower.

Airport Noise Issue

After several setbacks, the county is again asking legislators for relief and protection from repeated lawsuits by property owners near John Wayne Airport who complain of noise damage.

County-sponsored measures intended to limit the suits have twice been vetoed by Gov. George Deukmejian. Airport operators were dealt an additional setback last September, when, in a case involving the Burbank Airport, the state Supreme Court ruled that noise is a “continuing nuisance”--a definition that upholds the right of area property owners to sue repeatedly.

Robinson, who carried both of the earlier measures, introduced a bill last year that is still pending that would define airport noise as “permanent nuisance.” The change in definition would prevent property owners from suing airports time and again. The measure is supported by airport operators throughout the state.

‘Continuing Nuisance’

The “continuing nuisance” interpretation allows airport-area residents to sue again 100 days after winning or losing an earlier noise-damage suit. Well-to-do property owners in Newport Beach and in areas near the San Francisco International Airport have used lawsuits, many of them in Small Claims Court, to bring political pressure on airport operators.

Orange County, which owns John Wayne Airport, is a defendant in more than 250 pending suits regarding noise damage. Lindbergh Field in San Diego was hit with 980 lawsuits at one point in the mid-1970s.

When he vetoed a similar bill by Robinson in 1984, Deukmejian said the measure was premature because the issue was being decided in court. Fearing a third gubernatorial veto, Robinson and county lobbyists did not try to advance the bill last year.

But Robinson said he will make an all-out effort this year to win some kind of relief for Orange County and other airport operators.

Open to Suggestions

“I don’t know what shape it is going to be in,” Robinson said, adding that he was open to “any reasonable suggestions that come out of the governor’s office.”

A hearing on the measure is scheduled Tuesday before the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Another Orange County-sponsored bill was inspired by a July, 1984, California Supreme Court ruling that a Los Angeles-area gang member was entitled to two separate trials for murders that occurred a year apart and had no significant similarities.

Although county officials admit the ruling has had little or no impact in Orange County so far, they fear that it will give rise to costly, time-consuming separate trials in many criminal cases unless the Legislature overturns what they view as its key finding.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Jim Cloninger, who suggested the legislation, said the ruling stripped away the authority of trial judges to decide when separate trials are needed to ensure fairness to a defendant.

Separate Trials Under Ruling

Under the ruling, Cloninger said, someone charged in a series of liquor store robberies would have to be tried separately for each incident unless a prosecutor could show there was common evidence that would be admissible in the prosecution of each offense.

While “cross-admissibility had been used as an analytical tool,” Cloninger said, “the Supreme Court flipped that around 180 degrees . . . making it a condition. It’s pretty common for this Supreme Court to do that.”

County officials acknowledge that it is unusual for a local government to advocate such a proposal. But because of the anticipated high costs of repeated trials, they see the bill as a good idea and a potential money-saver.

But Harvey Zall, chief deputy in the state public defender’s office, said county officials supporting the bill may be overreacting or may have misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling.

No Complaints

Zall, legislative advocate for the public defender’s office, said he had heard no complaints about the ruling from state prosecutors or from legislative advocates for district attorneys. “And I certainly hear enough cries of outrage about the rulings of the Supreme Court,” Zall said.

Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso, Joseph Grodin and Malcolm Lucas face voters in November. The decisions of the court’s liberal majority, particularly their reversals of death penalty cases, have been frequently criticized and have fueled an unprecedented, emotionally charged campaign to defeat them.

County lobbyists had not found an author for the measure as of late last week.

Meanwhile, Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach), who failed last year to win passage of a measure forcing separation of the offices of sheriff and coroner, introduced a county-sponsored compromise measure last Monday--the first day legislators returned from their recess.

Ferguson’s new bill would allow, but not compel, all counties where one person is both sheriff and coroner to give district attorneys full responsibility for investigating all deaths of persons in jail, on the way to jail or in any incident involving law enforcement officers.

Ferguson said he expects opposition to the new measure to be similar to that he faced last year. But with the county supporting it this time, he predicted that the new measure’s chances for passage will be much greater.

LEGISLATION SOUGHT BY COUNTY

Major legislation sought by the Orange County Board of Supervisors during the just-begun legislative session:

Sheriff-coroner--A measure, AB 2591, introduced last week by Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach) that would allow, but not compel, any of the 35 California counties with a combined sheriff-coroner office to turn over all coroner duties relating to in-custody deaths to the district attorney of that county.

Airport noise--A measure, AB 1801, introduced last March by Assemblyman Richard Robinson (D-Garden Grove) that would limit noise-nuisance lawsuits against airports by redefining jet noise a “permanent nuisance” and disallowing repeated lawsuits by the same plaintiffs.

Flood control--A measure, SB 1024, introduced last March by Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim) that would give Orange County broad authority to create “benefit assessment districts” and levy voter-approved assessments to property owners to help pay for flood-control improvements such as the $2-billion Santa Ana River project proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Courthouse construction--A measure, expected to be introduced by Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach), that would allow Orange County to raise money for construction of needed court facilities by tacking special penalty assessments on fines for parking and traffic infractions.

Criminal trials--A measure, not yet introduced, that would blunt the possible effects of a 1984 state Supreme Court ruling that mandated separate trials for defendants charged with multiple offenses. The measure would state that prosecutors need not show evidence admissible toward each crime to avoid the separate trials, which Orange County officials say are costly and time consuming.