A copy of the original was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and has been scanned with OCR software to produce this webpage copy.

The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1155

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld,

The Los Angeles Basin, a region with more people than all but a few states, is desperately short of useable civilian runway space. Although there are several airports in the region, Los Angeles International (LAX) is the only airport with a central location convenient enough for the majority of LA Basin citizens to use and with runway capacity sufficient to handle large volumes of cargo and passenger traffic. Unfortunately, significant expansion at LAX is not practical. MCAS El Toro. is the most suitable location for a new civilian airport that could in the short term alleviate the burden on LAX and in the longer term provide suitable growth for domestic and international passenger and cargo air traffic.

In 1993, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro, California was designated for closure by the Clinton Administration under the auspices of the Defense Department Base Reuse and Closure (BRAC) guidelines. The reason for closure was specifically to convert MCAS El Toro into a civilian airport. Per statute, Orange County immediately formed the MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) and began planning for the conversion to a civilian airport. Shortly thereafter, a citizens group composed primarily of the surrounding communities, began a campaign to stop the conversion. The Clinton Administration, which had up to that time been supportive, began to waffle and the process of transfer bogged down. Since 1995, the El Toro Airport proposal has survived several court challenges and voter initiatives.

Shortly, we will be facing another initiative on El Toro. The voters will be asked if they want to convert El Toro into a regional park. There have been various legal opinions cited on what potential reuse that BRAC allows, but I haven't seen an official Defense Department position. Please help me clarify for the citizens of Orange County what specifically can or can't be done with El Toro when it is turned over to Orange County.

Attached to this letter is a copy of the September 2000, Final Report "A Review of Potential Revenue Sources For Funding the Millennium Plan for MCAS El Toro". This report was prepared by The City of Irvine as the City's economic analysis of the reuse of the MCAS El Toro as a "great park" as described in the City's "Millennium Plan". Page 5 of this Report states that the land for the uses described in the Plan will be acquired at no cost by means of a Public Benefit Conveyance transfer under the Base Reuse and Closure Statutes ("BRAC"). I have been asked to solicit an official DoD response to the following questions regarding the attached report.
 

1. Who has the legal authority to receive property under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Title 24, SEC. 2905 (4)(A); 32 C.F.R. Part 175.7? Does it mean that BRAC property surplus of federal requirements (for example, the portions of MCAS El Toro which are not being transferred to federal agencies, such as the El Toro airfield, etc.) can only be transferred to the LRA for the base? Also, in the case of El Toro would that mean that only the MCAS El Toro LRA would be eligible to receive a Public Benefit Conveyance?

1. What are the time limits that apply to applications for reuse under BRAC under Chapter 3 and Appendix E of the Base Reuse Implementation Manual? Does that mean that to receive BRAC property as a Public Benefit Conveyance the Local Reuse Authority must submit an application for that transfer within a certain time period? And, has the time period for submitting applications for a Public Benefit Conveyance for El Toro passed?

1. Please clarify who sponsors a public benefit conveyance under Federal Property Management Regulations 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-47.302-1? It says that Public Benefit Conveyances are available to LRA's for such public uses as airports, education, health, historic monuments, ports, parks and recreation, and wildlife conservation. Please clarify if an application for a Public Benefit Conveyance requires sponsorship and endorsement by the appropriate federal agency (for example, the National Park Service for park land and recreation conveyances) is required. Specifically, if El Toro were to be transferred to Orange County to be used as a park would the National Park Service have to sponsor it?

1. Who determines the highest and best use for Public Benefit Conveyances under Federal Property Management Regulations 41 C.F.R. Sec. 10147.303-1 and Federal Property Management Regulations 41 C.F.R. 101-47.4909? Please define "the most likely use to which a property can be put, so as to produce the highest. monetary return from the property, promote its maximum value, or serve a public or institutional purpose. Does it mean that the highest and best use determination must be based on the property's economic potential, qualitative values (social and environmental) inherent in the property itself, and other utilization factors controlling or directly affecting land use (e.g. zoning, physical characteristics, private and public uses in the vicinity, neighboring improvements, utility services, access, roads, location, and environmental and historical considerations)? Does the definition also entail that projected highest and best use should not be remote, speculative, or conjectural? Does the LRA requesting a Public Benefit Conveyance need to provide an analysis and determination that the use for which the Public Benefit Conveyances is requested is the highest and best use for the property based on information compiled from the property inspection and environmental assessment? If so, does that mean that an LRA's application for a Public Benefit Conveyance requires the LRA to establish that the proposed use is economically the "highest and best use of the property"?

1. Has the Defense Department received an application for Public Benefit Conveyance from the City of Irvine or any other legal entity? If so, I request that a copy be forwarded to my office.

1. Please provide a legal opinion as to whether or not the attached Final Report "A Review of Potential Revenue Sources For Funding the Millennium Plan for MCAS El Toro" meets the required economic analysis to justify a transfer of the property for the uses described in that report under BRAC statute.

1. Finally, if the citizens of Orange County decline the conveyance of MCAS El Toro, for whatever reason, what will become of the property?

Sincerely,

/s/
Dana Rohrabacher
Member of Congress

Click here for the Navy's September 14, 2001 reply to this letter.

Click here for Congressman Rohrabacher's subsequent November 1 press release.