Measure A Debate Heard Before Court of Appeal

Attorneys for Orange County and a bloodied but unbroken alliance of South County cities fired their latest salvos here Monday in the ongoing debate over a proposed commercial airport at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.

Arguing before a three-judge panel in the 4th District Court of Appeal, lawyers for both sides haggled over Measure A, which Orange County voters narrowly approved in 1994 and which opened the door to potential construction of the airport.

An alliance of South County cities, led by Lake Forest and Irvine, two cities adjoining the Marine base, urged the appeals judges to overturn a February 1996 decision by San Diego County Superior Court Judge Charles R. Hayes, who ruled that Measure A was “valid and lawful.” Hayes noted Measure A amended the county’s general plan to allow an airport, but did not mandate one, as opponents had argued.

Richard Jacobs, a San Francisco attorney representing the South County cities, argued Monday that Measure A violates existing California law because the initiative “never once” considered whether roads, highways and other infrastructure could support an airport.

Jacobs stated that Measure A subverted the county’s planning process by removing the authority over such issues from the Airport Land Use Commission.

“Measure A did not merely start a planning process,” Jacobs said. “It determined that an airport be built at El Toro.”

After oral arguments were concluded, Jacobs said in an interview that “had the airport issue gone before the Airport Land Use Commission in the beginning--as it should have--you would have heard witnesses arguing its cons as well as its pros. You would have representation by South County cities on the commission, and instead, you had none of that.”

Michael S. Gatzke, the San Diego County lawyer who represented the county, disagreed, telling the judges that Measure A did not subvert the role of the Airport Land Use Commission or any other county agency that would ordinarily make planning decisions.

“Measure A only addressed the development of an airport at the Marine base,” Gatzke said. “It did not address the various land uses surrounding El Toro.”

As for whether Measure A was a good or bad idea, Gatzke argued that its merits were not at issue, saying, “Did the electorate act in an illegal way? No. . . . Whether it’s a good idea is open to question and beside the point.”

A San Francisco attorney arguing on behalf of a host of North County cities, including Newport Beach, Garden Grove and Anaheim, supported Gatzke and the county during the hearing.

Christy H. Taylor, who represented the North County cities, called Measure A “a necessary first step in getting the airport planning process going” but not in any way an invalid or unconstitutional maneuver concocted by airport proponents to get the airport built.

Last December, the county Board of Supervisors endorsed a plan to build the airport, triggering a separate lawsuit from eight South County cities. That suit contends the county failed again to consider noise, traffic and pollution effects.

In a concession to South County residents living around the base, supervisors scaled back plans so that a commercial airport at El Toro would serve a maximum 25 million annual passengers, and said they would pursue a ban on night flight and take other steps to lessen the airport’s negative impacts.

The appellate panel has 90 days to issue a decision.

The Marine base is scheduled to close July 1, 1999.