Pro-El Toro forces file additional evidence

Mathis Winkler

NEWPORT BEACH -- Proponents of an airport at the former El Toro Marine

Corps Air Station have filed more evidence they say proves Measure F is

unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs against Measure F, which requires two-thirds voter

approval for airports, jails and landfills, submitted a “request for

judicial notice” Oct. 6 with a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge,

who is expected to rule on the matter.

In March, a lawsuit to overturn the measure was filed by the city of

Newport Beach and two pro-airport organizations -- the Airport Working

Group and Citizens for Jobs and the Economy. The lawsuit charges that

Measure F, also known as the Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative, is

unconstitutional, unenforceable and invalid.

Although Judge S. James Otero has already heard oral arguments on the

constitutionality of the measure Sept. 11, one of the plaintiffs said the

new information didn’t become available until after that date.

The “new information” is a certified transcript from an Irvine City

Council meeting.

At that meeting held Sept. 26, Councilman Mike Ward said of Measure F:

“If we thought Measure F would have won with just airport on there, we’d

have put it in there. But, no, we put jails and hazardous waste dumps.

Why? Because we read the polls.”

Under California law, initiatives must be limited to a single subject.

Supporters of an airport at El Toro argue that the measure’s inclusion of

jails and landfills make it unconstitutional.

“This is the first time that a public official has said on the record

that [jails and landfills] were only thrown in to push the measure,” said

David Ellis, one of the plaintiffs and a consultant for the Airport

Working Group.

Both Ward and the creators of Measure F said the statement didn’t

reveal anything new.

Jails and landfills were included “because they are major public works

projects that could affect people in their communities,” said Richard

Jacobs, an attorney for the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, which

produced the measure. He added that it was “exceedingly unusual and odd”

to submit evidence after the hearing.

While agreeing with Jacobs, Ward said that at the time the measure was

drafted, he wasn’t even a member of the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority

and therefore had no insider knowledge of why jails and landfills were

included in the measure.

While Ward served on the authority as one of Irvine’s representatives

in 1998 and 2000, he did not during 1999, the year Measure F was drafted.

Ellis said that Ward’s absence from the authority as a board member

didn’t mean that he wouldn’t know what was going on.

“We’re to assume that representatives of the city of Irvine to [the

authority], that they are not communicating back to the city what has

been done?” he said, adding that Ward’s comments spoke for themselves.

“If the judge agrees to review [Ward’s statements,] that’s great for

us,” said Ellis. “If not, it’s still a pretty damning admission that

Measure F was a ruse on the electorate.”

Although Otero did not give a date for a ruling on the case, he is

required by law to reach a decision within 90 days of the Sept. 11

hearing.