Slow-Growth Foes Win Court Review of Ballot Measure

After one justice criticized a slow-growth initiative as vague and confusing, a state appellate court panel Wednesday agreed to decide by Friday whether the controversial measure will appear on the June 7 countywide ballot.

The decision was expected to come the same day that 1.1 million sample county ballots are scheduled to be printed.

A three-justice panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana on Wednesday heard developers and builders appeal a March 29 Superior Court ruling placing the Citizens Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative on the June ballot. The building industry has argued that the initiative is clearly unconstitutional and conflicts with state law.

One of the justices hearing the appeal was sharply critical of the initiative, calling it “poorly written.” But he said he was reluctant to keep it from the voters.

“Even a very stupid measure should be left on the ballot unless dire consequences can be demonstrated” if it passes, Associate Justice Edward J. Wallin said.

‘Number of Interpretations ‘

“It’s so poorly written there are already any number of interpretations to it,” he said.

Superior Court Judge John C. Woolley, who denied the builders’ bid to keep the initiative off the ballot, also criticized the measure as poorly written.

But state courts generally have been reluctant to remove initiatives from the ballot before a vote, although they have done so more frequently in the last few years.

Lawyers defending the initiative, including the two lawyers who wrote it, admit parts of the initiative are unclear. But they said some of the fault lies with the developers and builders themselves.

Much of the language under attack in the three-page initiative was included at the request of the county’s major landowners during a series of meetings between the two sides last summer, said Belinda Blacketer, a Laguna Beach lawyer, in a statement filed in the case.

The added language ostensibly would allow developers to continue to build projects if they improved traffic flow on adjacent roads, according to the statement.

Spokesmen for the Irvine Co. and the Santa Margarita Co., the county’s two largest landowners, replied Wednesday that the companies may have had some influence on the drafting of the initiative in last summer’s meetings but that they still opposed the final product.

In broad outline, the initiative would forbid the county to approve construction projects where traffic is unacceptably heavy unless the road system is first improved.

The initiative applies only to roads--not freeways--and only to the unincorporated areas of the county, where the vast majority of new subdivisions are slated to be built.

The Building Industry Assn. of Southern California Inc., a powerful trade group for the home building industry, sued the county Board of Supervisors a month ago, after supervisors bowed to public pressure and put the initiative on the June ballot.

The supervisors, all of whom have criticized the initiative, elected to remain neutral in the legal battle. The initiative is being defended by lawyers for the Citizens for Sensible Growth and Traffic Control--the group sponsoring the initiative--and lawyers for the cities of Irvine, Laguna Beach and San Clemente.

That group won the first round last week when Woolley denied the builders’ request to remove the initiative from the ballot.

The builders had not proved conclusively that the initiative would put an unconstitutional burden on builders, Woolley ruled. Nor had they proved that the initiative would halt all construction in violation of state law, he said.

The builders then appealed Woolley’s decision to the Court of Appeal, which surprised some lawyers in the case by agreeing to review the lower court ruling.

In addition to the courts’ traditional reluctance to interfere with initiatives before a vote, the appeals courts accept only a small percentage of the cases referred to them.

Because of the impending printing of the ballots, the court will have little time to make its decision.

“We would not ask you to hurry if it weren’t important,” Edward N. Duran, deputy county counsel, told the judges during Wednesday’s two-hour hearing.

Duran represents the county registrar of voters, who is responsible for printing the 1.1 million sample ballots sent to voters before the election.

“We’re asking for one of your scholarly, well-reasoned opinions,” Duran said. Then he added, “by Friday,” as the 30 reporters, lawyers and activists attending the hearing laughed.

But Wallin, one of the judges, complained: “We don’t have the time, it seems to me, to do the analyses and prepare a decision.”

Nevertheless, Presiding Justice Harmon G. Scoville said in ending the hearing, “Before we go home Friday afternoon or evening there will be a decision.”