Appeals Court Upholds Vote on El Toro

In another blow to southern Orange County’s anti-airport campaign, the 4th District Court of Appeal here Monday unanimously upheld a 1994 voter referendum clearing the way for a civilian airport to be built at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.

The three appellate judges found “no defect” in Measure A, saying that San Diego County Superior Court Judge Charles R. Hayes was correct when he ruled in February 1996 that the referendum was “valid and lawful.”

An alliance of South County cities led by Lake Forest and Irvine appealed to overturn Hayes’

ruling, insisting that a commercial airport would bring traffic tie-ups, pollution and noise to their neighborhoods near the sprawling military base.

The plaintiffs argued that Measure A, which amended the county’s General Plan to allow the airport, was “preempted by and inconsistent with” the State Aeronautics Act requiring that a county’s Airport Land Use Commission review any such General Plan amendment.

“In this case,” the judges wrote in Monday’s decision, “we find nothing in the State Aeronautics Act prevents voters from adopting a General Plan amendment which may impact an area subject to the Airport Land Use Plan.”

The appellate court endorsed Hayes’ conclusion that Measure A amended the county’s General Plan to allow for an airport, but did not mandate one, as opponents had argued.

Measure A, narrowly approved by countywide voters in November 1994, was financed by wealthy developer George L. Argyros and other county business people. Proponents lauded the measure as a way to bring thousands of jobs to the county by meeting a growing demand for passenger and air cargo service in the region.

*

The case was tried and appealed in San Diego because of concerns that Orange County jurists might have a conflict of interest over El Toro. Three other lawsuits involving the El Toro issue--two of them targeting the environmental impact report--also will be heard in San Diego in August.

Monday’s ruling “upholds the voters’ mandate,” said Clem Shute, special counsel for the city of Newport Beach, named as an intervening party in the case. “It means that Measure A passed twice, really. It passed once and the other side tried to have it repealed. I think it vindicates our position and gets rid of this cloud hanging over the process.”

Lake Forest Councilman Richard T. Dixon, whose city was a plaintiff in the suit, called the appeals court decision “a real disappointment” that goes beyond the case itself.

“This was more than just airport versus no airport,” Dixon said. “We’re dealing here with ballot-box planning. The courts are upholding that ballot-box planning is legal, and I find that very scary. Even if I were a developer, I would be nervous about what Measure A really means and the fact that it has far-reaching implications beyond what happened in Orange County.”

Dixon said an appeal is not a foregone conclusion and that the plaintiffs have spent “tens of thousands of dollars” already in fighting Measure A. Rather, he said, they may focus their efforts on challenging the county’s environmental impact report.

Michael Gatzke, the San Diego attorney who represented Orange County’s interests in the Measure A suit, said his clients were “thrilled” by Monday’s ruling and that it permits county government to move forward on a commercial airport proposed to accommodate at least 25 million air passengers a year.

Others said the ruling’s importance had been diminished in December, when the Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 to endorse the concept of a commercial airport at El Toro, thus triggering a fresh wave of lawsuits over the environmental impact report.

“This is one of many bullets in the chamber,” said Tom Wall, chairman of the Airport Land Use Commission and a member of the El Toro Citizens Advisory Commission. “This one turns out to be a blank round for South County.”

Indeed, the judges supported the defendants unilaterally, conceding not a single point to the plaintiffs, who have the option of appealing Monday’s ruling to the California Supreme Court--a right their opponents expect them to exercise.

Two suits involving the environmental impact report contend the county failed to adequately consider noise, traffic and pollution effects. Eight South County cities are a party to the first of those suits, with two others listed as intervenors.

*

In the second suit, the anti-airport group, Taxpayers for Responsible Planning, stands alone as plaintiff.

A third suit, filed by the county against the city of Irvine, concerns land-use development issues surrounding 440 acres of land within the 4,700-acre base that fall within Irvine city limits. The suit focuses on who has authority over the land, the county or Irvine.

Bill Kogerman, executive director of Taxpayers for Responsible Planning and an ardent airport opponent, said Monday’s ruling was not surprising and that his group’s suit over the environmental impact report has a better chance of winning.

The ruling “won’t take one step out of my stride,” he said, contending that political momentum is shifting in favor of airport opponents.

“We have demonstrated we’re winning the hearts and minds of Orange County,” he said. “Even the county’s latest study says 48% of the residents of Orange County don’t want an airport at El Toro, and only 35% say they’re really in favor of it,” with the rest undecided.

All three suits involving El Toro are scheduled to be heard in the courtroom of San Diego County Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell, who’s regarded as an environmentally friendly jurist in whose courtroom developers often fail.

Also contributing to this report was Times staff writer Anna Cekola.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

What’s Ahead for El Toro

Here’s what lies ahead in the decision over a commercial airport at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station:

* Anti-airport plaintiffs in the Measure A case have 30 to 40 days to decide if they will appeal Monday’s loss before the appeals court to the California Supreme Court.

* Two lawsuits regarding what plaintiffs say are deficiencies in the county’s environmental impact report--one by Taxpayers for Responsible Planning, the other by the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, both supported by 10 South County cities--go before San Diego County Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell in August.

* A third lawsuit, by the county against the city of Irvine, also will be heard by McConnell, probably in August. It concerns land-use issues involving

440 acres of the 4,700-acre base that fall within Irvine city limits. Irvine has jurisdiction, but the county contends it controls the entire base as the designated land reuse authority, a status conferred upon it by the Department of the Navy, which owns the base until 1999, when it’s scheduled to close.

* The county has scheduled hearings involving myriad planning issues surrounding El Toro; dates are not yet set. The Citizens Advisory Commission as well as the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority will hold regular meetings on base reuse and where citizens can air their views, regardless of which side they take.

Source: Times reports; Researched by MICHAEL GRANBERRY / Los Angeles Times