Ruling May Resonate Far Beyond County

Developers and local government officials fighting slow-growth initiatives received potential ammunition from a Los Angeles judge who thwarted efforts by Orange County voters to wrest control over airport planning from their elected supervisors, some experts say.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge S. James Otero on Friday wiped out Measure F, which would have required approval of two-thirds of Orange County voters before an airport, jail or hazardous waste dump could be built near homes. Sixty-seven percent of county voters in March embraced the measure.

“This ruling will have significance that will go beyond Orange County,” predicted Mark Baldassare, executive director of the San Francisco-based Public Policy Institute of California, of the decision over the fate of the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. “It questions the ability of voters to usurp the rights of their local elected representatives.”

But others say Measure F was too broadly worded, and that a narrower, differently crafted initiative might well withstand legal challenge.

Fred D. Woocher, a Santa Monica attorney who represented Newport Beach in the battle over the El Toro airport initiative, said many slow-growth measures are drafted to comply with a rule that they must address a single subject--unlike Measure F.

“This was not your garden variety land-use initiative,” Woocher said. “There have been a number of initiatives around the state that have been upheld, where they require that future changes to the master plan have to be approved by voters. But this one was deceptively sold to the public. They wrapped it in nice things that everyone would go for, but it created a fundamental change in the way government operates.”

Smarting from decisions perceived as too development-friendly, community activists across California have rallied for more control over planning. Last month, 61 land-use measures appeared on ballots across the state, and voters in at least six cities--including Newport Beach, Solana Beach, Danville and Monterey--demanded a greater say in development decisions. Burbank residents voted by a 4-to-1 ratio to give themselves control over any airport expansion there, and supporters of a slow-growth measure in Malibu claimed victory last week by a six-vote margin.

Opponents of the Malibu measure say they will either ask for a recount or challenge the measure in court. And in Newport Beach, national and state business interests that spent more than $400,000 in a losing campaign to prevent a slow-growth initiative are preparing post-election legal strategies, said Rick Manter, an Irvine consultant on the anti-Greenlight effort.

Otero’s ruling “may add renewed vigor to that examination,” Manter said.

But Greenlight initiative proponent Tom Hyans said, “I’m not concerned. If you read the judge’s opinion, the similarity wasn’t there.”

Friday’s ruling could give legs to a lawsuit filed last week by Orange County supervisors, seeking to block another voter initiative. Measure H, which was approved by voters Nov. 7 by a wide margin, dictates how supervisors must spend about $30 million a year in proceeds from a lawsuit settlement with tobacco companies.

As with the anti-airport initiative, Measure H enjoyed significant community support, passing with 64% of the vote. And, like Measure F, county attorneys are arguing that Measure H illegally handcuffs supervisors’ authority to determine how public money should be spent.

That measure might also be declared unconstitutional, said Woocher, the attorney who represented Newport Beach on Measure F. “The budgeting decision is one that is delegated exclusively to the Board of Supervisors,” Woocher said.

Fred Smoller, political science professor at Chapman University in Orange, said the debate over both measures mirrors the tug-of-war over the presidency.

“On the national level, we are talking about the validity of the electoral college rather than the popular vote to choose our president,” Smoller said. “And in Orange County, we are talking about whether the people will have a direct say in land-use decisions.”

Otero’s ruling might fuel initiative reform efforts, some observers said. Currently, a 30-member state panel, called the Speaker’s Commission on the California Initiative Process, is considering changes. The group hopes to make recommendations next spring, in time for reforms to be proposed during next year’s legislative session.

The commission will not address changes to city or countywide initiatives, but some believe it could produce a ripple effect.

Reforms are needed, Baldassare said.

“This is exactly what voters complain about,” he said. “They love having the power of deciding initiatives, but they are incredibly frustrated with the process that allows so many issues that are so very important to get all of the way through, only to be struck down months after the election.”

*

Staff writers Jean O. Pasco and David Reyes contributed to this report.