Slow-Growth Forces Riled at Possibility Vote May Be Delayed

Backers of the controversial slow-growth initiative charged Friday that Orange County officials are using tricky legal maneuvers to jeopardize the measure and possibly delay a countywide vote on it until November.

The initiative sponsors learned Friday that county officials are reviewing a six-week-old state law that might permit the Board of Supervisors to launch a study of the initiative’s potential impact before the board decides how to respond to the ballot measure.

Under the new law, which took effect Jan. 1, the supervisors, at the conclusion of such a study, would have the option of adopting the initiative as an ordinance or placing it on the ballot--but not until November.

The initiative sponsors had been working to get the initiative on the June 7 ballot, and the registrar of voters announced Thursday that the initiative had qualified for the June ballot with an estimated 74,000 signatures--about 9,000 more than necessary.

But Deputy County Counsel Stefen H. Weiss said a new study could take until March 31, and, in that case, it would be too late for the supervisors to place it on the June ballot. March 11 is the statutory deadline for including items on the June ballot.

If a report is later than March 11, Weiss said, “presumably, it would fall to the next general election . . . that’s November.”

Gregory Hile, co-author of the initiative, was fuming Friday. “Whatever they do, they damn well better have it on the ballot in June,” he said.

“I think what the board may want to do is avoid facing the voters of Orange County,” Hile said. “It sounds like they’re taking the chicken’s way out.”

Added attorney Belinda Blacketer, also an initiative co-author: “It’s purely political. If they wanted to study it, they have known about this thing since August.”

The initiative would prohibit development in areas where traffic speeds are below certain levels. It also prescribes minimum standards for emergency response times and park space that would be a precondition for development.

Coincidentally, a slow-growth initiative qualified for the ballot in Riverside County on Friday. Riverside Registrar of Voters Robert Morgan said the supervisors there will consider the same option of conducting a study of the initiative.

The Orange County registrar prepared a briefing for the supervisors that outlines the actions they can take in responding to the initiative. It said the board could adopt the initiative as an ordinance, refer it to the June 7 ballot or conduct a study that is due 45 days after the measure was certified by the registrar, which was Thursday.

Focus of Study

Such a study would focus on the economic impacts of the initiative and determine if it is consistent with the county’s current planning.

Both Hile and Blacketer said they considered it illegal for the board to request a study.

Since the new law took effect Jan. 1, Hile said, it should not apply to the initiative because the registrar was notified of the signature-gathering process in September.

“Even if it did apply, what’s the point of doing it,” he said. “They have all come out against it.”

Some of the supervisors have said lately that they are reluctant to predict the county’s response to the initiative because their comments could disrupt the process.

Said one supervisor’s aide on Friday: “That is the subject of very intense analysis and discussion up here. There is a real dilemma.”

Roth Expects June Vote

Friday, Supervisors Roger R. Stanton and Gaddi H. Vasquez did not return phone calls.

Supervisor Don R. Roth said the county was not trying to thwart the initiative, and he still expected it to be on the June ballot. “I’m not going to delay anything,” he said.

But Roth said he did not want to vote on the initiative until he sees a report that is being prepared for the county by Chapman College. The report, expected by the end of February, is supposed to evaluate the impact of the initiative on Orange County’s economy.

Slow-growth sponsors also complained Friday about the county’s decision to schedule the initiative matter for the supervisors’ March 1 meeting. They said state law requires the board to consider the initiative at its next meeting--Tuesday.

Weiss said, in his opinion, the March 1 board meeting was proper.

The timing is significant because the board is scheduled to consider so-called developer agreements for three major developments at its meeting on Wednesday, Hile said.

Opposition to Agreements

The agreements, if approved, would freeze the zoning for specific projects, possibly protecting them from the effects of the initiative, in return for developers’ contributions to new road construction.

The agreements have been strongly opposed by slow-growth proponents. Hile said that if a lawsuit is filed challenging the validity of the agreements, the county’s defense of the contract-type documents could be undermined if the board has publicly discussed the initiative prior to a vote on the agreements.

“There are provisions of the law that recognize pending legislation,” Hile said. “It’s an open legal question.”