IRVINE, November 7, 2001—The prospect for El Toro to be converted to either an airport or a non-aviation public use is still very much a continuing process with many steps and decisions still ahead, according to a letter obtained by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) from Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment, H. T. Johnson.

Rohrabacher had asked the Defense Department to clarify a number of issues regarding the potential for El Toro’s reuse as an airport in comparison to non-aviation public uses, particularly a park.  According to Paul D. Eckles, Executive Director of the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, “In his reply, Secretary Johnson was careful not to take sides with either pro-airport or anti-airport positions, but he did indicate that the door is open to a non-aviation use at El Toro.  The key factor is the Local Reuse Authority, which is responsible for planning the reuse of El Toro, a responsibility that was originally vested with ETRPA, and later the County of Orange.  In response to Rohrabacher’s questions, Secretary Johnson explained a number of issues that have garnered much local debate and speculation.”

In the federal review process, the Navy is analyzing equally several options for El Toro, including aviation and non-aviation alternatives.  “In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Navy leaves open the possibility for a preferred alternative other than the airport option,” said Eckles.  “The Millennium Plan, the original non-aviation plan for El Toro, serves as a general guideline for a plan that includes significant open space, recreational and public uses.  The Navy could still approve a version of this original plan based on increased land area for parks.  In fact, the Joint Navy/FAA environmental review is considering a reuse option based on the original Millennium Plan prepared by ETRPA.”

“This letter clearly debunks the notion by airport advocates that it will cost $400 million to purchase the land for the park.  The land can be transferred at no cost for public benefit users,” stated Eckles.  “Clearly, the Navy can approve a public benefit conveyance for either a park or an airport.  The important thing is to send a clear message from the citizens to the supervisors that a non-aviation use is preferred by the community.”

Airport proponents have claimed that the non-aviation advocates have missed the opportunity to apply for a public benefit conveyance and do not have a federal sponsor for non-aviation uses such as a park. “The Navy’s letter refutes this claim,” states Eckles. “The county has not completed the sponsorship process with the FAA for airport conveyance. For that to be complete, they would need approval from the FAA.  In addition, the county does not yet have an approved Homeless Assistance Plan required by federal law to be part of its application to the Navy.  The portions of the airport reuse plan identified for recreation and educational uses would also require sponsorship of the National Park Service and the Department of Education.  Without these steps completed, both the airport and the non-aviation plan are on the same footing with regard to federal approval.”

Secretary Johnson’s letter addressed a number of important issues, which have been debated by both sides of the El Toro issue.  Included are the following clarifications:

Statement: El Toro was closed specifically for reuse as a civilian airport.
Johnson: “The 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of MCAS El Toro citing limitations on mission growth and force structure changes due to air and ground encroachment around the airfield…. The commission’s recommendation regarding closure of MCAS El Toro and realignment of aviation assets to other west coast facilities did not address the future use of the El Toro property.”

Question: Who has authority to receive El Toro property?
Johnson: “The Navy has the discretion to convey property for public benefit purposes such as a commercial airport or parks, to convey the property to the State and local governments by negotiated sale, or to sell the property at public sale.  In most cases, the disposal decisions of the military departments have been consistent with the reuse plan; however, the decision whether to convey property for a particular purpose is vested solely at the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy.”

Question: Are there time limits to apply for conveyances?  (Implication: Has the time passed for a park conveyance?)
Johnson: “The Department of Defense Base Reuse Implementation Manual (BRIM) urges the military departments to expedite the disposal process in order to assist communities with economic recovery and to reduce caretaker costs for the military departments.  The time limits are notational and establish goals but do not create a legal bar to consider applications for property after these time limits have expired, especially where, as in the case of El Toro, a public benefit conveyance application would be submitted by the LRA itself.”

Statement: Clarify public benefit conveyance sponsorship.
Johnson: “There is a specific federal sponsoring agency for each type of public benefit conveyance and, without the recommendation of the sponsoring agency, the property cannot be conveyed through the public benefit conveyance process…. For example, for a public benefit conveyance for parks, the National Park Service (NPS) would recommend that the Navy assign the property to the NPS.  The Navy would assign the property to the NPS, and the NPS then would sign the deed conveying the property to the State or local government applicant.”

Question: Who determines the highest and best use for the public benefit conveyances?
Johnson: “As the disposal agency for the former MCAS El Toro, the Navy makes the determination regarding the highest and best use of a particular parcel.  This may include the suitability of the property for a public purpose, such as a school or economic development as well as the potential monetary return to the government.  A parcel may be suitable for more than one use.  If an eligible entity makes an application for a public benefit conveyance, the sponsoring agency, in accordance with its regulations, will evaluate the eligibility of the applicant, its need for the property and the property’s suitability for the intended purpose.”

Statement: Provide a legal opinion as to whether the Millennium Plan meets the required economic analysis to justify a transfer of the property under BRAC for the uses described in an Irvine-prepared report on the Millennium Plan.   (The report is ‘A Review of Potential Revenue Sources for Funding the Millennium Plan for MCAS El Toro’ prepared by Irvine in 2000.)
Johnson: “[T]he Navy cannot make any decisions on the disposal of the property until it complies with the NEPA.  Therefore, it would be premature to evaluate whether the Navy would dispose of property to implement the Final Report.”