Bigger Freeze Slapped on El Toro Work

Orange County on Thursday abruptly froze millions more dollars in El Toro airport work and reassigned the project’s employees until officials sort out legal issues related to Measure F, the anti-airport initiative overwhelmingly approved last month by voters.

The action represents the most dramatic victory to date for airport opponents, who have been trying for years to stall the county’s efforts to build an international airport at the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, which could serve as many as 28 million passengers a year.

County officials insist that the freeze is temporary and that the work will begin again as soon as next week, when the Board of Supervisors meets. But opponents said the work shutdown demonstrates that the Measure F victory puts the entire multimillion-dollar planning process in jeopardy.

“This is good news,” said Jeffrey Metzger, the Laguna Hills attorney who is past chairman of the citizens group that helped place Measure F on the ballot. “What I see happening is a sense of Measure F and all its ramifications is really starting to bear on the county’s planning process.”

First, on Tuesday, the county suspended seven contracts amounting to $2.1 million related to airport planning while supervisors voted to continue for a week a public hearing on what effect Measure F might have on further spending. Measure F requires such a hearing before any public funds are spent on airport planning.

Thursday’s action, by County Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier, halts 12 more contracts worth millions more, including the legal services of Michael S. Gatzke and public relations airport work by Jeffrey B. Trammell with the county’s

Washington, D.C., lobbying firm.

In addition, six staffers working on El Toro issues will be reassigned to serve in other capacities throughout the county until funding issues are resolved.

“Suspending program office operations is a necessary measure pending further public hearings and court clarification,” said Michael L. Lapin, program manager for the El Toro airport plan.

County Counsel Laurence M. Watson said Measure F does allow for release of some funds such as the county’s contract with a private company that handles the golf course, stables, recreational vehicle parking and child-care centers at El Toro.

Watson also said he believes Measure F allows the airport’s environmental process to continue provided the county holds a public hearing and approves related expenditures.

“The county is trying to focus on Section 4 of the measure and what it says on expenditures,” Watson said. “The Board of Supervisors has said and made clear that they intend to follow the law.”

Pro-airport groups challenged putting Measure F on the March 7 ballot, questioning its constitutionality. The measure, passed by 67% of voters, requires supervisors to get two-thirds voter approval for certain major projects--including airports, and certain jails and landfills.

An Orange County judge ruled against the pro-airport forces but not before they made some legal arguments the judge said were significant, adding that he did not have enough time to fully consider the arguments before the election.

Earlier this week, another judge refused to allow the county to dodge the voter-approved spending limits while a lawsuit challenging the validity of the measure plays out in court. No court date has been set to hear the lawsuit, and at least one county supervisor said she will not vote for any El Toro-related spending without a judge’s approval.

Meanwhile, county attorneys and attorneys from an anti-airport coalition have scheduled a Monday meeting to begin negotiations for a potential agreement on legal issues or, at a minimum, a list of El Toro-related programs both sides agree can move forward.

The county’s suspension of the contracts Thursday took some airport boosters by surprise, but others said they could see the logic of Mittermeier’s position.

“With the pending lawsuit underway, there is not enough known about what is legal or not,” said Tom Naughton, president of the Orange County Airport Working Group, which has pushed for another airport in the county since 1982. “Until a judge makes that determination, I guess this is the only option the county has.”

Naughton expressed confidence, however, that in the end the pro-airport forces would prevail.

Others were less generous in their assessment of Mittermeier’s action.

“This is a surprise,” said Julie Puentes, a spokeswoman for the Orange County Business Council. “We knew that some action would be taken, but this seems a bit drastic. We were not consulted, so it’s difficult to respond. We need to know more about [Mittermeier’s] thinking on the planning issue.”

Irvine Mayor Christina L. Shea, who was meeting with officials in Washington as part of an anti-airport entourage from South County, said she believes that the initiative’s “legal restrictions” on county expenditures for airport planning are not only starting to bear fruit but may essentially “neuter the process.”

“You’re really going to start seeing this implosion at the county because the consultants are not going to just hang around waiting for the next four to five months,” she said.

“There are implications that the board members can be held personally liable for approving unlawful contracts, and that’s why we believe that Measure F and its implications are so far-reaching that the airport is at the end of its runway.”

But Bruce Nestande, president of Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, expressed hope that the issues surrounding Measure F could be resolved within a matter of days.

“When you have no legal definitions and you’re being sued for personal liability, this is about all you can do,” he said. “But these issues should have been resolved by now. If we can take the proponents of Measure F at face value that their intention is not to disrupt the planning process, then this could be settled in 15 minutes.”