Confusion Over Measure F Still Clouding Hall of Administration

Ten days after passage of an anti-airport ballot initiative, Orange County has no blueprint for dealing with Measure F, which restricts spending on the proposed El Toro Airport.

Instead, confusion reigned at the Orange County Hall of Administration on Thursday, even as to when Measure F officially takes effect.

Some supervisorial aides thought it was March 28, when supervisors are scheduled to certify the vote. Others thought it was 10 days after certification. Some had no idea.

Officials at the Orange County registrar of voters’ office said they’re all wrong: Measure F becomes law on April 27--a full 30 days after supervisors’ certification.

Unhappiness about the lack of answers stretched across both sides of the airport fight Thursday. There should have been a contingency plan prepared to respond to the inevitable questions arising out of Measure F’s passage, supervisors said Thursday.

Three supervisors were critical that neither County Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier nor County Counsel Laurence M. Watson had detailed how the county should deal with the new law, which was approved by voters March 7. Although Mittermeier and Watson were not asked to do so, they should have done so on their own accord, the supervisors said.

“The contingency plan should have been presented to us prior to the election,” said Chairman Charles V. Smith, a member of the board’s three-member pro-airport majority. He said the lapse points to a persistent problem. “This is what I’ve been screaming about for two years, the problem with this whole process.”

Supervisor Todd Spitzer, an airport foe, said that county management is “in denial” over the measure’s success.

“They have no plan in place, and the reality is that there will never be a plan in place unless a court orders them to have one,” Spitzer said. “I fully expect that a court is going to have to play referee from now on.”

Supervisor Jim Silva, an airport supporter, said he has asked for a list of the county’s options and will meet with Mittermeier today.

Measure F, approved by a sweeping 67% of voters, allows the county to complete environmental studies on airport and jail projects but forbids spending on lobbying or advocacy, including public information campaigns. The measure demands that the county get approval from two-thirds of voters before the projects can be built.

Pro-airport groups have filed a legal challenge against Measure F, asking that the initiative be declared unconstitutional and in violation of state law. The county may now be in the awkward position of defending the measure that a majority of supervisors opposes.

Anti-airport forces have said they will attempt to have their own attorneys defend the measure instead of the county.

Supervisors intend to meet in closed session Tuesday to discuss the lawsuit.

Smith, Spitzer and Silva said they will also hold an open meeting to discuss the county’s contingency plans for dealing with Measure F.

Silva, for example, said he wants to know whether the public hearings called for by Measure F means holding hearings in all 33 cities. And he wondered whether hearings must be convened by the Board of Supervisors or if they could be conducted by county staff.

“I’ve certainly asked to see our options,” Silva said. “They’ve said they’re working on it.”

Officials with the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, composed of eight South County cities that drafted Measure F, sent supervisors a warning letter this week insisting that no spending of any kind on El Toro is allowed without first holding a public hearing.

The letter, written by authority director Paul Eckles, said board members could be held personally liable for expenditures that later were determined to be unlawful.

Smith called the letter “a bluff.”

“There is nothing in Measure F telling us to immediately stop everything and to breach our contracts” with consultants and lobbyists, the board chairman said.