Judge Has Doubts on El Toro Measure

A Los Angeles County judge on Monday postponed a ruling on the fate of an Orange County ballot measure that could stop plans to build an airport at El Toro, but he raised questions about whether the measure ran afoul of state law.

Superior Court Judge S. James Otero, who will issue his ruling within 90 days, focused a court hearing Monday on whether Measure F gives voters authority that by state law is granted exclusively to the Board of Supervisors, and whether it violates the “single-issue” rule that bars unrelated subjects from being addressed in a single measure.

Both issues have been cited by pro-airport forces as reasons the measure should be thrown out. Attorneys with Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, and the Airport Working Group also argue that the local measure violates the state Constitution by imposing a two-thirds public vote requirement before airports, certain jails and hazardous-waste landfills can be built. The Constitution limits two-thirds votes by the electorate to specific types of issues, such as taxes and bonds.

Measure F, which passed with 67% support, is defended by a group of anti-airport residents and a coalition of South County cities. They argue that such public projects should have overwhelming voter backing before the Board of Supervisors can order them built.

If Measure F stands, it would require county supervisors to place a fourth El Toro airport measure before voters, if they still want to build one.

Each side in the debate over the fate of the former Marine base was anxiously awaiting Otero’s ruling Monday after the postponement of two previous court hearings. Instead, the judge asked attorneys to flesh out their arguments and said he would consider them along with hundreds of pages of legal briefs before issuing a written opinion.

Otero mostly listened Monday as attorneys summarized their cases, but at times he interrupted to ask questions.

At one point, the judge told attorneys opposed to an airport that Measure F appeared to interfere with the workings of government because voters would be asked repeatedly to decide on “every step involved” in expanding or building a jail, airport or hazardous-waste landfill. So many votes might be “equal to an outright ban” on those projects, Otero suggested.

Later, probing the measure’s “single-issue” compliance, Otero said “one of the problems” with Measure F is the lack of a common-sense relationship between airports, jails and hazardous-waste landfills. While airports might bring noise and traffic congestion, jails and landfills would not, he said.

“There is no unifying health and safety theme,” Otero said. “This is your opportunity to bring this all together and convince me otherwise.”

Attorneys for both sides nonetheless cautioned that Otero’s questions couldn’t be used to predict his eventual ruling. And Otero said nothing, for example, on the issue of Measure F’s two-thirds vote requirement.

Attorney Richard Jacobs, representing the anti-airport El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, said the judge raised issues “we knew would be raised” and cautioned against speculation. The judge’s silence on the two-thirds question means he’s probably made up his mind on that point, Jacobs added.

“Nothing the [pro-airport side] said can overcome 67% of the voters and the deference the judge has to give to that,” said ETRPA Chairwoman Susan Withrow, a Mission Viejo city councilwoman.

Pro-airport attorneys agreed that the decision couldn’t be predicted from Monday’s hearing but said they were pleased with the judge’s questions.

“The judge obviously has major concerns with significant parts of the measure, and we think he appreciates the problems,” attorney Fred Woocher, representing pro-airport Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, said after the hearing.

Until the judge rules, the county’s airport planning will continue, county officials said later Monday. County planners estimate that it will take another year to finish an environmental review required by state law. However, the county has put other spending--for lobbyists and public-relations firms to push an airport proposal--on hold pending the court decision.

“We will obey the law and wait to see what the judge says,” Board of Supervisors Chairman Chuck Smith said Monday through a spokesman.

“The airport definitely is a macro work in progress, and this is just one phase of it,” said Bruce Nestande, chairman of Citizens for Jobs and the Economy. “A ruling in our favor definitely moves some momentum to our side. But in the long pull of things, all I care about is what I believe this judge is trying to do and that is to give an honest analysis of what this measure is all about.”