Judge Plans Initiative Ruling Soon : Printing Deadline for Growth Measure Will Be Factor

After a two-hour hearing Wednesday, an Orange County Superior Court judge said he will rule soon on a request by the building industry to knock the countywide slow-growth initiative off the June 7 ballot.

“The law is fairly clear in California that pre-election review of an initiative (by the courts) is disfavored,” Judge John C. Woolley told lawyers for both sides at the end of the hearing. But he added that there have been cases in which initiatives have been barred from the ballot.

During the hearing, Woolley peppered lawyers for both sides with questions, several of which they appeared to be unable to answer to his satisfaction.

Printing Deadline

The small courtroom on the fifth floor of the county courthouse in Santa Ana was crowded with reporters and with lawyers monitoring the high-stakes case for local developers. The building industry contends that the initiative would choke off most construction in the county, making traffic worse and increasing taxes.

County officials, meanwhile, are operating under a deadline: They must tell the printers between April 1 and 4 what to put on the ballot. The Board of Supervisors and the registrar of voters are defendants in the lawsuit.

Woolley said he will consider the printing deadline in rendering a decision, but he did not say when he might rule. Both sides said they will quickly appeal if they lose.

The Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative would limit development in areas where construction would reduce traffic flow below certain levels or overload public services.

Its supporters say the initiative is designed to require developers to widen roads and make other improvements. Polls show that the initiative is overwhelmingly supported by voters, who are frustrated with the county’s traffic jams.

The Building Industry Assn. of Southern California, the local Commercial Industrial Development Assn. and the Orange County Chamber of Commerce sued the county earlier this month after the Board of Supervisors certified the initiative for the June ballot. Supporters of the measure gathered 96,000 signatures on petitions to force that certification.

The filing of the suit split the opposition to the initiative. Some of those opposed to the measure favor a more intensive public relations campaign and fear that the suit--if lost--could backfire and anger voters.

County supervisors voted to remain neutral on the lawsuit, so the defense is being handled by two lawyers from the citizens group pushing the initiative and lawyers hired by the cities of Irvine and Laguna Beach.

Measure Called Vague

Wednesday’s hearing revolved mostly around narrow legal points rather than broader arguments developers have raised in public against the initiative.

Lawyers opposing the measure said it is so vague that it contradicts itself, that it is unconstitutional and that it conflicts with state law. Under previous state court decisions, Woolley can remove the initiative from the ballot if he agrees with those assertions, the lawyers said.

The initiative’s language is so confusing and contradictory, said Alvin S. Kaufer, a lawyer for the business groups, that “the county can’t do it even if they want to do it.” Gregory A. Hile, a lawyer for the citizens group sponsoring the initiative, told the judge that wasn’t true. The initiative, Hile said, is straightforward, and the business groups wanted it scotched “based solely on conjecture” about the impact it would have.