Judge: O.C. Can Spend on El Toro Again

Orange County can resume spending money on airport planning at El Toro, a Los Angeles judge ruled Thursday, because a portion of a successful ballot initiative that stopped expenditures is too vague.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge S. James Otero acknowledged his ruling did not affect Measure F’s overall intent, but said the wording in the initiative’s section on spending limits was so vague that “no reasonable person could understand what is prohibited. . . .”

The decision was welcomed by airport proponents who in recent weeks have become frustrated with elected officials and county managers who have halted El Toro’s planning process because of the initiative’s limitations.

“It’s very good news,” said Bruce Nestande of Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, a pro-airport group.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Chuck Smith, who is part of the board’s pro-airport majority, said that as a result of the judge’s ruling, he intends to put the issue of airport planning up for approval at a meeting Tuesday.

“As far as I’m concerned, we should restart the planning process,” Smith said. “I personally feel we shouldn’t have stopped it in the first place because it only delayed getting an airport plan to the public.”

Nestande said he was especially pleased that the court refused to curb spending on El Toro at a crucial time for the county, which has already missed several planning deadlines. The expenditure issue would have “crippled the board’s authority” to continue with planning, he said.

David L. Ellis, a plaintiff in the case, said that airport proponents will encourage the Board of Supervisors to restart the planning process “as soon as possible.”

On March 7, county voters overwhelmingly passed Measure F, a ballot initiative that limits spending to promote an airport and requires two-thirds voter approval before it or other major projects could be built. Since then, a majority of supervisors has been unwilling to take further steps on El Toro until a judge ruled on a lawsuit challenging the measure.

The judge scheduled a June 3 hearing to discuss the spending limits though it could be expanded to include the entire initiative.

Paul Eckles, executive director of an eight-city anti-airport coalition, said he was disappointed but confident that the initiative will survive legal scrutiny.

“We’re obviously disappointed but this is a very preliminary skirmish in what will be a much longer legal battle,” Eckles said. “I can tell you that we haven’t lost.”

Eckles said the court hearing did not include full arguments by both sides.

“The county could start planning for an El Toro airport, but the danger is they may have to set it aside on June 23,” he said.

In his decision, Otero said he had trouble understanding the expenditure section of the initiative and what the county could or could not do.

Judge Says County Faces ‘Hobson’s Choice’

According to several attorneys at the hearing, the judge said the county is faced with a “Hobson’s choice.” If the county spends funds for planning, the supervisors risk personal liability and the county risks numerous lawsuits.

However, if the county strictly adheres to Measure F and doesn’t spend money, then it could be sued by those already awarded airport planning work.

Included in the 21 contracts the county sought to resume are funds for the legal services of Michael S. Gatzke, public relations airport work by major firms in Washington and work by Michael L. Lapin, the manager for the airport planning process.

Barbara Lichman, representing the Airport Working Group of Newport Beach, one of the groups seeking to have Measure F overturned, called Otero’s decision a “strong blow to Measure F.”

“The Board of Supervisors wanted court clarification before they proceeded on airport planning. Now, they have court clarification,” Lichman said.

The board put a freeze on El Toro planning work last month at County Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier’s recommendation. Three of the five supervisors who favor an airport--Smith, Cynthia P. Coad and Jim Silva--said that they wanted a court ruling before reversing that action, citing a threat by airport foes that they could be held personally liable for funds improperly spent on the project.

Coad, who had abstained from voting on any El Toro planning issue, called the liability issue “moot” in light of Otero’s ruling.

“We asked for this hearing because we needed to receive some independent unbiased answers to our questions,” Mittermeier said through a spokesman. “The court granted a stay, we now have a date and staff will move forward according to whatever direction we receive from the board.”