County Will File Second Suit to Push Freeway Plan

Orange County supervisors, reaffirming support for a freeway building program they helped create, voted Tuesday to file a lawsuit before the California Supreme Court supporting the City of Irvine’s bid to participate in the program.

It was the second time in eight months that supervisors directed county lawyers to file briefs in appeals courts contending that voters lack the power to keep Irvine from participating in the freeway-building venture.

Both lawsuits approved by the county challenge the efforts of an Irvine citizens group to block construction of the freeways. The residents claim the new freeways will bring unwanted congestion and development to their neighborhoods.

Irvine Participation Crucial

The proposed freeway program, developed by 10 cities and the Board of Supervisors, would raise 48% of the estimated $866 million needed to construct the planned San Joaquin Hills freeway in south Orange County and the Foothill and Eastern freeways in the county’s eastern areas.

Nearly $415.7 million of the fees would be raised from developments in the 10 cities and unincorporated county territories served by the freeways, making the proposed fee program the largest ever assessed for road building in California.

Irvine, near the heart of all three proposed freeways, would generate about one-fourth of all fees raised under the program--enough to make that city’s participation crucial.

However, the Committee of 7,000, a citizens group protesting construction of the new freeways, has twice tried to block the program with petition drives and now has filed a legal brief challenging the city’s bid to join in the freeway program.

The county brief will be filed in the state Supreme Court, which has decided to hear the dispute pitting the Committee of 7,000 against a coalition of business organizations that support the program.

The Supreme Court stayed an earlier state appellate court ruling that the freeway program was “obviously of statewide concern” and that voters did not have the authority to decide the question. Under state law, the court ruled, such decisions are specifically left to county supervisors and city councils.

“The essence of the litigation revolves around whether a local jurisdiction should have the ability to block construction of roads that have a regional transportation impact,” said John Stevens, an aide to Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, who chairs the joint powers authority that has been formed to build the San Joaquin Hills freeway.

City ‘to Remain Neutral’

Meanwhile, the City of Irvine has not taken a position in the case, according to City Atty. Roger Grable.

“The city’s position in all this is to remain neutral and to let the Committee of 7,000 and coalition of business groups take the brunt of the responsibility for the appeal,” Grable said.

Actually, there are two lawsuits pending over the freeway program. After the Committee of 7,000’s initiative petition drive ended up in court last summer, the council voted to authorize joining the joint powers authority that would build the freeways, Grable said.

However, the committee collected more petitions in an effort to force the issue onto the ballot. Enough signatures were collected to require the council to either repeal the ordinance or put it to a public vote within 30 days.

Before the deadline, however, business groups filed suit to block the referendum.

All parties have agreed not to pursue the second case on appeal because the issues are identical to the first lawsuit, according to Grable.

At present, the city has not formally joined in the freeway building program. But the freeway fees are being collected and held aside, pending the outcome of the court case.