Board Finds Itself Stalled on El Toro

As planning for an El Toro airport remains in limbo, there is no consensus among Orange County supervisors about what should happen next, including when--or if--the proposal should be brought back before voters.

A fourth El Toro vote is needed, some say, to either bury the airport idea or give county airport planners a mandate. While support for another vote is growing among the board’s three airport proponents, the two supervisors against it say it’s a waste of time and money.

The airport proposal for the closed Marine base has so divided the county that another vote is needed as soon as possible, said Supervisor Cynthia Coad, an airport proponent.

“What I see from Measure F, whether a court throws it out or revises it, is that a significant number of people would like to vote again on that one issue,” Coad said. “I want to pay attention to the fact people want to vote again.”

The other two airport advocates on the board, Jim Silva and Chairman Charles V. Smith, have also argued for another election--potentially giving such an initiative the board votes needed to put it on the November ballot.

Anti-airport board members Tom Wilson and Todd Spitzer, meanwhile, aren’t convinced that another vote is necessary. With so many flaws in the current airport proposal, they say, the county should end such planning without further expense.

“If we had the votes on the board to just say the plan is dead, and it was now time to do real planning for a non-aviation plan [for the base], of course I’d welcome that,” Wilson said. “Frankly, I can’t see any airport getting two-thirds [of the countywide vote] or even a simple majority.”

Airport planning screeched to a halt after voters last month overwhelmingly approved Measure F, the initiative that calls for two-thirds approval by county voters before airports, hazardous-waste landfills and certain jails can be built. The measure, approved by 67% of voters, is being challenged in court, but a hearing date could be months away. Until then, all airport planning remains on hold.

A majority of the supervisors--Coad, Silva and Wilson--said they would wait for the judge’s ruling on Measure F before approving any El Toro expenses, even those allowed by the initiative.

When the measure faces its court test, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge S. James Otero has several options: uphold the initiative, overturn it or invalidate parts of it, such as changing its provision for a two-thirds vote to a simple majority vote.

Attorneys involved in the airport fight said the judge probably will rule by August.

“The planning process right now is at a dead halt and will probably stay there until a court reconciles Measure F,” Smith said.

The apparent stalemate until then raises doubts about the county’s ability to meet its own deadlines, including one for responding to public concerns about the county’s environmental impact analysis of any El Toro airport.

The board was also scheduled to take a final airport vote in June--a target date now seriously in jeopardy.

These uncertainties also throw into doubt whether the issue could be brought before voters in time for the November election. The next regularly scheduled countywide election is June 2002.

That raises another potential problem: June 2002 is when Silva, Wilson and Coad would all face reelection. Campaigning to keep their seats while the airport issue rages would be challenging, at best, for candidates.

So if November is too soon for the election, and waiting until June 2002 to get the issue back before voters is simply too late, a special election may be necessary, observers say.

It would be worth the estimated $800,000 cost of holding a special election in 2001, said Susan Withrow, chairwoman of the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, a panel made up of eight South County cities opposed to an airport.

“That may sound like a lot of money, but consider that we’ve already spent $40 million on the airport,” she said.

There are many on both sides of the airport debate who say more planning should be done before the issue goes back to voters. The Navy and the Federal Aviation Administration must still weigh in on the county’s airport plan. And questions remain about how an El Toro airport would operate.

It is “totally premature” to consider putting the issue back before voters, countered Bruce Nestande of Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, the group leading the pro-airport fight.

“Right now, we don’t have a viable airport plan,” Nestande said.

Spitzer agreed that voters don’t have all their questions answered about the airport plan--and they should before another vote is taken. If that takes years, so be it, he said.

“It’s a difficult public policy issue and these issues tend to loom for a long time,” he said.

* EL TORO COSTS

Supervisors are being asked for $182,500 to pay off airport-related contracts. B4