Irvine Fights Airport With Annexation Bid

Throwing another wrench into the county’s planning for a commercial airport at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, the Irvine City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to seek annexation of the 4,700-acre base.

The city, which opposes the airport and wants control over the retiring military facility, will next take its annexation bid to the Local Agency Formation Commission, a seven-member appointed panel that has the power to block or approve the proposal.

Annexation would allow Irvine to wrest authority over the planning process from the county. The Board of Supervisors voted last year for the airport plan over staunch opposition from South County, where many residents believe it will bring noise, traffic congestion and safety problems.

“I know it’s going to be an uphill battle, but we have been fighting that uphill battle for the past four years,” said Irvine Mayor Christina L. Shea. “We are finally starting to win the war,” she said, referring to the recent ruling by a San Diego judge declaring the county’s environmental impact report for the proposed airport inadequate.

Added Councilman Mike Ward, “I want to annex that property. Whatever goes in there, I want to be involved in the planning process.”

*

Most of the audience members who addressed the council supported its decision.

“All of South County is united in its opposition to an airport,” Laguna Niguel Councilman Eddie Rose said. “The city of Irvine is carrying the ball for all of us.”

The sole dissenter, Guy Mailly of Irvine, said, “I think this council needs to start looking at the economic opportunities that an airport would provide.”

Irvine officials say they are confident the annexation will win LAFCO’s backing.

Further, anti-airport groups argue that annexation would nullify Measure A, the 1994 voter initiative that amended the county’s general plan to allow an airport. Since annexation would put the base within Irvine’s boundaries, the city--not the county--would have jurisdiction over planning and use of the property, according to Richard Jacobs, attorney for the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority.

LAFCO Chairman John Withers cautioned against assuming how the commission will vote, saying, “I would be very disappointed in any commissioner who would take a position prior to having an application submitted.”

He said the county and the city, despite their differences over the airport, must craft a joint proposal on how to share property tax revenue to provide basic services such as police and fire protection for the area.

Some LAFCO officials say it could take months to draft the proposal, if such an agreement is reached at all.

*

And there will likely be a political fight before LAFCO because there is a county policy against any annexation that would affect “existing or proposed aviation facilities.”

“We are going to see county staff put this issue through the wringer,” said Randal J. Bressette, LAFCO vice chairman and a Laguna Hills councilman. “I doubt it will get to LAFCO any time soon.”

The Marine base is in county territory, but is also within the adjacent city of Irvine’s “sphere of influence” for planning purposes.

On Monday, San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell ruled that 440 acres of the base are actually located in the city--something the county disputed. McConnell’s ruling allows the city to move forward with its plans to build a sports complex there, according to city officials.

City voters do not need to pass judgment on annexation because an election is required only when residents who live in the area to be annexed protest the move.

Irvine officials say it is unclear whether Marines who are registered to vote in California and live on the base could protest and bring on an election.

*

LAFCO is made up of Withers, Bressette, Supervisor Todd Spitzer, who opposes the airport; Supervisor Charles V. Smith, who supports the airport; Peter Herzog, a Lake Forest councilman; David Boran, a private citizen who lives in Seal Beach; and Robert Huntley, a member of the Municipal Water District of Orange County.

If the annexation is ultimately approved, it would complicate matters for the Department of the Navy. Navy officials are expecting to hand over the property to the county, the lead agency in charge of the conversion process, by July 1999.

Extending the deadline to transfer the property would cause problems for military officials, who have stated they do not want to get involved in the local planning process.

“As far as the Marine Corps is concerned, we want to dispose of the property as quickly as possible,” said Capt. Matt Morgan, base spokesman. “Until we are presented with a proposal, we don’t know what is going to happen. With any delays in the [transfer] date we are . . . going to have money taken away from Marine training to cut the grass and paint the buildings here.”