ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL
September 12, 2000
Chairman Charles V. Smith
Orange County Board of Supervisors
10 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, Ca. 92701
SUBJECT: El Toro Marine Corps Air Station planning process
Dear Chairman Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors,
While Los Angeles Superior Court Judge S. James Otero prepares his written opinion on the legality of Measure F, the Safe and Healthy Communities initiative, the County of Orange has the opportunity to take steps designed to give a fresh start to the troubled planning process for the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air station (El Toro).
These steps should be taken no matter how Judge Otero rules. No matter what the fate of Measure F, the County must take decisive and constructive actions to restore public confidence in the El Toro planning process.
And to truly make a fresh start, the Orange County Business Council recommends the Orange County Board of Supervisors re-visit the underpinnings of the decision to build an Orange County International Airport at El Toro. By taking six specific actions, the Business Council believes the Board of Supervisors can begin to restore public confidence in the County-led El Toro planning process and, at the same time, verify and validate the technical foundation used to explain why an airport at El Toro is needed.
Specifically, the OCBC recommends:
1. A peer review be conducted immediately of the existing planning documents. The County has assembled a world-class team of technical consultants to plan a Measure A-mandated aviation facility at El Toro. County consultants’ work to date should be carefully reviewed and validated by an independent, outside team. In light of allegations that some consultant recommendations were improperly suppressed or ignored, this review would begin to restore confidence in the existing county work product – or recommend changes that should be made. Differences in opinion should be acknowledged, but recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) should be complete and fully documented. An outside review of the existing planning documents should also serve to validate the August 21 schedule developed by the El Toro Planning Office.
2. Passenger and cargo demand scenarios for Orange County and Southern California should be updated. A driving force for an airport at El Toro is the documented understanding that there is significant future demand for additional air service for Orange County and Southern California. The sizing of an airport at El Toro and, ultimately, the need for a second airport in Orange County, should be based on a broadly agreed upon assessment of both long term and short-term aviation passenger and cargo demand. A clear strategy, with a specific timeline, for verifying and validating airport regional needs should be articulated by the Board of Supervisors to help restore faith in the county planning process.
3. Re-visit the preferred alternative for the El Toro Airport Environmental Impact Report (EIR 573). Measure A requires the Orange County Board of Supervisors, acting as the LRA, to prepare the necessary documentation to consider an airport at the closed military air station. As more complete information becomes available, the County should better define the preferred alternative in EIR 573. Keeping options open on the size and scope of an airport at El Toro should be a priority in the county’s planning efforts. As new data becomes available, the county should be flexible in making changes and responding constructively to new information and data.
4. Clarify the non-aviation alternative at El Toro. The coalition of South Orange County cities known as the El Toro Re-Use Planning Authority (ETRPA) has suggested a mixed-use proposal they call the Millennium Plan as the non-aviation alternative for El Toro. In documents submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission, the City of Irvine has proposed a second alternative, a less densely developed version of the Millennium Plan. Additionally, the City of Irvine has promoted a massive park plan for El Toro in countywide mailings. For purposes of a fair, accurate, side-by-side comparison, the precise nature of a non-aviation plan should be clarified and the potential taxpayer cost of a single, non-aviation alternative identified. Confirming the non-aviation alternative with the ETRPA group makes good sense and is consistent with the voter-approved Measure A planning process as adopted by the LRA in December 1996.
5. Put El Toro in a regional context. Earlier this year, Chairman Smith explored the potential of re-invigorating the Southern California Regional Airport Authority, a multi-county joint powers agreement the county joined originally in the 1980s. A regional approach to airport planning, and perhaps airport operations, makes good sense in an area as inter-related as Southern California. Support for a regional airport authority should be renewed to provide a form to deal with complex air space, air traffic, and demand issues. Orange County should be involved in a re-invigorated Southern California Regional Airport Authority and the Board of Supervisors should appoint one of its current members to serve on the regional airport authority Board of Directors.
6. Learn the lessons of Measure F. Although there is a wide array of opinion on what the voters intent was in passing Measure F, it is clear that almost all airport opponents and airport proponents were dissatisfied with the timeliness and the quality of County-released information on the advantages and disadvantages of an airport at El Toro.
In recent weeks, the county has worked to open the planning process by disclosing more data and by being more inclusive in sharing important information. This positive trend towards more timely disclosure should be encouraged and enhanced. Voices on both sides of the divisive airport issue will always take exception with information that does not serve their single-minded interest; however, the county must work hard to be a fair broker of accurate, authentic information on the advantages, disadvantages and sometimes difficult planning issues involved in examining a potential airport at El Toro.
Without question, the County should obey the law. Measure A of 1994 requires the county to prepare an aviation plan for El Toro. This plan should be competent, credible and complete. No matter how Judge Otero eventually rules, the County’s efforts to plan an airport at El Toro should be true to the spirit of Measure F and should proceed in a very open and very public way, as if Measure F’s requirements had been completely upheld in court. In the days ahead, the Board of Supervisors would be well-served to act as if they need to secure a decisive countywide vote, whether such a vote is ever taken or not.
While the County awaits a ruling on the legality of Measure F, it should
continue to take steps to re-build its planning credibility on major infrastructure
programs. By immediately taking constructive steps to verify and validate
the work done-to-date, to map a plan to re-examine the preferred alternative
in EIR 573, and to take a more regional approach to aviation planning,
the County can begin restoring its reputation as a competent, open leader
in regional infrastructure planning.
Sincerely,
Tom Merrick
Stan Oftelie
Chairman
President & CEO
C ETRPA Board of Directors
Members, Irvine City Council
Citizens for Jobs and the Economy
Robert Richardson