2 Arguments by Foes of Expansion Rejected : Judge Says the Ballot Statements and Part of 3rd for Newport Center Measure Include Falsehoods

A judge threw out two ballot arguments written by foes of the Newport Center expansion plan and struck a portion of a third argument Monday because they contain false statements, city officials said.

A fourth ballot argument challenged by lawyers for the city was left untouched by Superior Court Judge Harmon G. Scoville, City Atty. Robert H. Burnham said.

“We’re not going to appeal,” said Allan Beek, author of the contested arguments and a critic of the expansion plan. “Our ballot argument still looks very good.” Beek is an organizer of a group called Gridlock that is opposed to the expansion plan.

The four ballot arguments are part of a packet to be mailed to every registered voter in the city. The arguments were challenged by the city after a residents’ group supporting the Irvine Co.’s planned $300-million expansion of Newport Center accused Gridlock of making false statements.

Special Election Nov. 25

The expansion plan, originally approved by the City Council in July, will be put before voters in a special election Nov. 25.

Judge Scoville deleted Gridlock’s claim that 110 acres of open space would be preserved under the city’s existing general plan.

“That statement is incorrect,” City Atty. Burnham said. “Only 66 to 67 acres . . . would be provided under the current general plan.” The expansion plan, known as Measure A on the ballot, would provide 140 acres of open space, Burnham said.

Beek disagreed. He said that the city’s general plan already requires 110 acres of open space if the land owned by the Irvine Co. is developed and that voters do not need to approve Measure A to preserve that open space.

“We would get them anyway. It’s open space or open fields until it’s developed, and then they would have to build the parks anyways,” Beek said.

William P. Ficker, chairman of the pro-expansion group Citizens for a Better Newport, said Beek was wrong.

In a letter last week asking the city to challenge Gridlock’s ballot arguments in court, Ficker said: “The implication here is that the public will get all of this open space whether or not Measure A passes, which is not true. There will be no incentive for the Irvine Co. to dedicate so much open space without approval of the Newport Center completion plan.”

The judge also threw out a false statement that Beek had tried to delete from the ballot argument himself last week after admitting that he had made a mistake.

The inaccurate claim stated that much of the $40 million in road improvements promised by the Irvine Co. would consist of land dedication, not cash. The figure actually reflects estimated construction costs that the company will pay and not land dedication, Beek said.

A portion of a third Gridlock claim was deleted. Judge Scoville decided that the group would have to remove a reference to the environmental impact report for its claim that “traffic throughout Newport Beach will be worse as a result of the project, not better.”

Statement Not Made

“The environmental impact report did not make that statement, and you can’t really draw that conclusion from it,” Burnham said.

However, the judge allowed the rest of the claim to stand and left untouched Gridlock’s allegation that “Newport Center adds 40,000 cars. Pelican Hill Road diverts 16,000 cars. Result: more traffic through Corona del Mar.”

“It’s nice to be vindicated by the court on those traffic things,” Beek said.

In his letter, Ficker asked the city to investigate nine potentially false or misleading statements in Gridlock’s one-page ballot argument. The city challenged four of the nine allegations in court.

The challenge was filed by Newport Beach Mayor Philip R. Maurer on Sept. 26.

“We felt if we had more time, we could have shown that they all were misleading,” Maurer said Monday.