In less than two weeks, millions of dollars spent on years of exhaustive studies is expected to culminate in what is sure to be a contentious meeting for airport officials as they hear a motion to put Marine Corps Air Station Miramar on the November ballot as a replacement site for Lindbergh Field.For some, it was an inevitable conclusion, despite staunch opposition from the Pentagon.Miramar is one of six sites on a list the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority has been mulling over this year as the agency prepares to fulfill its state-mandated duty to put a site on the November ballot that it feels will best serve the county’s long-term air transportation needs.Three of those sites are civilian ” Lindbergh Field, Imperial County, Campo/Boulevard ” and three are military, including Naval Air Station North Island, Miramar and Camp Pendleton.Concepts for the military sites involve some form of joint- or shared-use with a new civilian airport, while the civilian sites would host a stand-alone airfield.During a May 22 meeting of the authority’s Strategic Planning Committee, board member Paul Peterson essentially confirmed what has been widely suspected: that Miramar will end up on the ballot. In somewhat dramatic fashion at the end of nearly four hours of staff presentations, Peterson read a motion recommending to the full board that all sites except Miramar be removed from consideration for the ballot.The motion, which passed 3-1 and is likely to pass the full nine-member board June 5, even went so far as to clarify language that may appear on the ballot in the form of a question:”Shall San Diego County government officials make every effort to persuade Congress and the military to make available, by 2020, approximately 3,000 of over 23,000 acres at MCAS Miramar for a commercial airport; provided: (1) military readiness and safety are maintained with no cost to the military for relocation or modifying operations; (2) necessary traffic and transportation improvements are made and (3) no local tax dollars are used on the airport?”The motion seemed to bring a sense of finality to a process that has lasted nearly four years.”This certainly focuses the mind,” board member William D. Lynch said. It will also focus the opposition when the full board meets June 5 to take up the committee’s recommendation.Military officials said after the meeting that they would have a response to the motion at that time.The U.S. Department of Defense has repeatedly said it opposes any use of military installations for commercial aviation. In a statement to the committee, Capt. Mike Allen, chief of staff for Navy Region Southwest, said the military joint-use concepts would “seriously degrade the Department of Defense mission,” and called the Miramar scenario an “irresponsible compromise of public safety. Pubic safety and the (Department of Defense) mission must be of paramount concern in any responsible analysis,” he told the committee. “They cannot be balanced against other considerations.”Should voters approve the site, it may also have to withstand congressional opposition. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) has introduced legislation banning any form of commercial use of all three military installations.But Peterson said the will of voters should be enough to pressure elected officials into opening up land at the base by 2020.That wasn’t enough for Lemon Grove Mayor Mary Teresa Sessom, who was the lone dissenting vote. “I still don’t believe we’ve looked at (San Diego International Airport),” she said. “I feel like we’re just passing this on to the next generation.”Committee Chair Paul Nieto said years of vetting Lindbergh Field for a multitude of second runway concepts have produced nothing that would meet forecasted demand outside of the controversial Concept 6, which was voted down last year by the board.”I think the analysis has shown that the civilian sites don’t work,” he said. Nieto said he remained unconvinced that Miramar was off-limits, pointing out that the Marines now use their runway for just 125,000 operations when it is capable of accommodating 500,000.”That, to me, doesn’t look terribly efficient,” Nieto said.Few would argue that the airport authority will have a difficult time selling the site to a majority of county residents. Relative to the other sites on the list, Miramar is projected to be one of the cheapest options at $5.9 billion and, at 12 miles from downtown San Diego, is at the projected population center for 2030.Use of Miramar would require the relocation of portions of Highway 163 and Interstate 15, but at a cost running into the tens of millions of dollars, it’s a relative bargain.Miramar’s price tag is dwarfed when compared to Campo/Boulevard at $16.7 billion, Imperial County at $17.4 billion and Camp Pendleton at $6.3 billion, with distances ranging from 45 to 104 miles from downtown. NAS North Island is close to Miramar in price at $5.8 billion, but the concept is a long shot because of the adverse impact it would have on base operations. According to the airport authority, Lindbergh Field’s capacity of 25 million passengers will likely be reached by 2015. Last year alone saw a 6 percent increase, from 16.4 million passengers served in 2004 to 17.4 million in 2005.Although consultants have presented the committee with almost a dozen different dual-runway configurations that would expand Lindbergh Field into much of the Midway district, the site remains hampered by hills on the east and west ends that make it impossible for fully-loaded trans-oceanic jetliners to operate. The site is also blocked in by the San Diego Bay to the south and entrenched development to the north.Airport officials expect a new airport to take 15 to 20 years to build once a site is acquired. The majority of that time will be tied up in anticipated litigation and environmental reviews, which will vary widely depending on the site.The authority must submit language to the County Registrar of Voters by Aug. 11 for the ballot on Nov. 7.