IRVINE : Overpasses Ruling Hailed by Both Sides

An Orange County Superior Court judge has managed to do what has seemed impossible in recent weeks in Irvine: make both sides of a controversial ballot measure happy.

Judge Eileen Moore’s ruling Thursday was viewed as a victory by both supporters and opponents of the proposed measure to expand pedestrian overpasses.

Voters in the June 5 election will be asked to decide whether the overpasses on Yale Avenue over the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe railroad tracks and the San Diego Freeway should be expanded to accommodate car and truck traffic. Now, they are used only by pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency vehicles.

The Yale Action Committee, supporters of the expansion, challenged the way the question and arguments were put to the voters, contending they were not factual and were too long.

Judge Moore ruled that the ballot arguments for the measures should remain intact, a move that pleased both supporters and opponents.

Moore stated that the arguments were opinions, not statements of fact, and therefore could remain on the ballot.

The supporters were attempting to “eliminate the opposition by contending the arguments were improper,” according to William Hanley, an attorney whose firm represented opponents of the overpass expansion.

Moore ruled, however, that the opponents of the bridge expansion must limit their statement to 300 words. She also ordered a rewriting of the ballot questions so that the language of the two measures is parallel and easily understood, attorneys said.

“It was a public interest lawsuit and I think the public was well served, “ said William Mavity, the plaintiff in one of two lawsuits challenging the city’s ballot. “It’s a big victory all around when both sides feel as if they’ve won something.”

The suits named the City Council, the city clerk and 10 citizens who signed their names to ballot arguments against the expansion.

Opponents of the expansion claimed that suing the private citizens was hitting below the belt, a move that would keep ordinary residents from participating in the political process because of constant fear of lawsuits.

Complaints over the inclusion of private citizens in the lawsuit prompted the City Council to agree to pay court costs and attorney fees for both sides involved in one of the suits.

In a defeat for Yale Action, Moore also let the city attorney’s analysis of the measures remain intact.

Yale Action members had argued that because the measure does not call for the expenditure of funds, the cost of the expansion should not be included in the attorney’s analysis.

Darryl Wold, attorney for Yale Action members, had argued that the expansion would be paid for from developers’ fees rather than from the city’s general fund.