Appeals Court Deals Setback to Orange County Airport Foes

In another blow to south Orange County’s anti-airport campaign, the 4th District Court of Appeal on Monday unanimously upheld a 1994 voter referendum clearing the way for a civilian commercial airport to be built at 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 cities led by Lake Forest and Irvine, which border the Marine base, had filed an appeal to overturn Hayes’ ruling, insisting that a commercial airport would bring unwanted traffic, pollution and noise to their suburban neighborhoods.

The plaintiffs had argued that Measure A--a referendum narrowly approved by Orange County voters in November 1994 that paved the way for an airport at El Toro--was “preempted by and inconsistent with” the State Aeronautics Act.

But Hayes and the appeal panel ruled otherwise.

“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.”

Measure A 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. Three other lawsuits involving the El Toro issue--two of them targeting the environmental impact report on the airport proposal--also will be heard in San Diego, sometime in August.

Michael Gatzke, the attorney who represented Orange County in the lawsuit, 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.

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.

But Lake Forest Councilman Richard Dixon, whose city was a plaintiff in the suit, called the appeals court decision “a real disappointment” that goes beyond the merits of the case and poses what he called grim consequences for Californians as a whole.

“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.”

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.

Two suits involving the report claim that the county failed to adequately consider noise, traffic and pollution effects. Eight cities are a party to those suits, with two others listed as intervenors.

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 impact report has a better chance of winning.

The ruling “won’t take one step out of my stride,” Kogerman 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.

Times staff writer Anna Cekola contributed to this story.