Metro Section
El Toro Report Card: A Failure
of Process
We oppose Measure F, the Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative, which is on the ballot for March 7. Its aim is to kill the El Toro airport, but it has broader ramifications for major public works projects in Orange County, and would lock in a super majority of two-thirds to get them built. If this measure were to pass, the long-term consequence would be to upend representative government and potentially to cripple the formulation of public policy. An indication of the complexity in this initiative is that voters who make the right choice on how planning should be done by voting "no" also will be lending support to the El Toro project, which arguably is the most flawed major public planning exercise in the history of the county. The initiative seeks a new process of public review for major public works projects, but the real target is the El Toro airport. Citizens should indeed have the opportunity to pass judgment again on the airport, especially now that fully developed alternative proposals could be compared. But Measure F isn't the way. After the announcement of closure in 1993, the county decided the destiny of the base before voters knew what they were deciding. Even then, Measure A, the 1994 initiative that rezoned El Toro for a commercial airport, passed narrowly. Because the method for deciding base reuse was turned on its head at that time, residents have decided to challenge the process now in desperation. Many conclude that the El Toro process is deeply flawed, despite any reservations they might have about locking in a super-majority vote and the obstacles it might create for projects already difficult to sell, such as jails and toxic waste dumps. They regard a solution "outside the box" as the only remaining way to get redress. In a sense, this initiative is a report card on how little confidence there is in county government five years after the bankruptcy. It seems unthinkable that the directly affected communities, one of which has part of the base within its city limits, have been cut out of the process. But that is what has happened. The anti-airport side has responded by digging in its heels to the point where even those in South County who might believe it possible to build an airport they could live with are reluctant to negotiate. This response arises also from frustration that only three supervisors, Charles V. Smith, Jim Silva and Cynthia Coad, will decide this crucial issue for Orange County's future. It is terrible that it has come to this, and the county has been let down by the inept leadership on this issue by the board majority. However, this initiative introduces a fresh set of questions about ballot-box planning, which we cannot support now any more than in the past. We opposed both Measure A, and Measure S in 1996, which would have precluded an airport, precisely because we believed that land-use planning was far too complex for a voting booth. We favor a proper procedure for making decisions on major public works projects at all times, under all circumstances. The correct solution to the disenfranchisement of the communities is to put the base reuse process on track.
How We Got to Where We Are Seven years after the announcement that the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station would close and only months after the Marines left, Orange County planners in December released a new environmental impact report for a 29-million passenger airport, a proposal essentially pre-approved by county supervisors in December 1996. This set the stage for what will happen in 2000. In May, county supervisors are likely to approve the airport by a narrow 3-2 vote. Measure F is an attempt to reverse that inevitability and to broaden the anti-airport appeal by including things that many people do not want near them, namely jails and toxic waste dumps. If Measure F passed, it likely would trigger another vote by residents on whether to build the airport. The federal base reuse process is crucial to understanding this community crisis and how to resolve it. The Department of Defense has charged the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) specifically with the task of building consensus, and with having "the complete support of local jurisdictions and interests groups." This has not occurred at El Toro. Why? The narrowly passed Measure A, promoted by airport supporters in 1994, effectively hijacked the process, leaving the county government in charge and sealing the fate of the property. It led to the removal of adjacent communities from the LRA and designation of the Board of Supervisors as sole planning authority. Since that time, the county has tended to regard those communities that ought to have standing as adversaries motivated entirely by the "not-in-my-backyard" syndrome. An alternative reuse plan framed by the cities was commissioned begrudgingly, but essentially as a backup. Separately, questions remain about the integrity of airport planning. The county has not been forthcoming about the possibility that a different kind of landing and takeoff procedure may be needed to win FAA approval and the confidence of pilots. County pronouncements have been characterized by wishful thinking about runway plans, hours of operation, noise levels and visual impact of overflights. The latest environmental impact report, released on Dec. 23, 1999, contained some overdue candor about cost (at $2.9 billion, nearly twice the previously advertised amount) and noise. However, there was nothing to suggest that the county was any more willing to address the concerns of aviation experts about its runway configuration, about whether the county could ban westerly takeoffs as promised, and indeed, whether it was leveling with the public in its favorable comparative economic assessment.
The Argument for the Airport Only the most adamant opponents would deny that it would be desirable to have an airport nearby that addressed Orange County's share of the regionwide transportation demand in the new century, and which delivered on a promise of economic growth. But given the community opposition, and uncertainty over the potential for this facility to change the quality of life in South County, "desirable" may not be enough. El Toro presents a potential disenfranchisement on a scale far greater than, say, would occur for a few hundred homeowners forced to relocate by eminent domain for a highway. The opposition has hardened over time, which means that the county has not succeeded in bringing many thousands of its citizens around to its case that the airport is vital to the future. In the meantime, the county has not done enough until very recently to minimize the potential adverse effect of new passenger levels at John Wayne Airport.
The Economic Case The airport originally was billed as a jobs generator, an argument that had particular resonance in the depths of the recession. The recent county report states the best-case scenario: hundreds of thousands of new jobs and billions in income and tourist dollars. The Orange County Business Council finds that in 20 years, a commercial airport would generate between $14 billion and $19 billion in economic output. In doing so, it would create 92,700 jobs, 20,000 of them not related directly to the airport. The airport would enhance global competitiveness and growth. The argument is strong, but the economy also is doing well without the airport. Orange County had a record low unemployment rate of 2.1% in December. The principal economic problems for the region appear not to be job creation, but the problems employers are having finding workers and, especially, the obstacles workers face finding affordable housing. These qualifiers may account for differences within the business community over the airport. While the leadership of the Orange County Business Council and others in the business-university community are strong airport supporters, there are pockets of doubt about whether the airport is essential. The quality of life issue was significant for nearly two-thirds of business executives surveyed by an outside polling firm for the city of Irvine. There hasn't been a good analysis of the latest non-aviation plan, which features a central park, wildlife corridor, and 15 million feet of commercial space and about 3,000 homes. For all of the weight given this economic issue, it is regrettable that the decision-making has gone so far without a full and fair comparison between plans. Job generation is a factor, but the appeal in the pro-airport argument has much to do with taking advantage of El Toro's "footprint" to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate future generations.
The 'Regional Responsibility' Case The primary source for regional growth projections is the Southern California Assn. of Governments, which projects that by 2020, Los Angeles will increase by nearly 2.5 million residents, Riverside and San Bernardino counties by more than a million each, and Orange County by about 385,000. SCAG regional studies recently have factored in an expanded LAX and planned for construction of El Toro, although one of several models being prepared recently was to consider an option without the latter that would make greater use of Ontario. The arguments are based on projections that include air fares, frequency of flights, destinations offered and travel times. SCAG expects the number of passengers using Southern California airports to double by 2020, raising the question of what would happen without expanded capacity. Two Orange County members of SCAG present the two sides of the county's response to this question: Los Alamitos Councilman Ronald Bates suggests both LAX expansion and the new El Toro are needed; Lake Forest Mayor Richard T. Dixon says meeting future demand should involve making better use of existing airports. John Wayne Airport currently has a cap of 8.4 million passengers per year, but is operating at a level below that. In 2005, the court-ordered limit on passengers and flights will lift, which means that it can handle more, either by lifting the cap on passengers but continuing to restrict the number of flights, or by lifting caps on both passengers and flights. A continued cap on flights is an obviously desirable scenario if John Wayne Airport eventually must expand. SCAG, in evaluating appropriateness of communities for new airports, selects whether communities are sufficiently mature economically to support new airfields. Its conclusions do not address community receptivity, a consideration much more important in 2000 than at any previous time. So the association has an overview, but it emphasizes market considerations, not impact on local populations and their perception of lifestyle. We have stressed that LAX can't do it alone, even though it is slated to undergo significant expansion. Palmdale and Ontario welcome expansion, but potentially face some expansion hurdles. Still, they want business. Orange County no doubt should be called upon to pick up some of the share of the regional load. Whether it ought to provide more by having a new 29-million passenger airport in the middle of a built-out suburban area is an entirely separate question. Disneyland's announcement that it doesn't need El Toro raises the question that some visitors and residents in North County might choose to use other airports, even if El Toro were available. The two palatable airport choices for Orange County are either a scaled-down El Toro airport in conjunction with the existing John Wayne Airport, where one serves commercial and the other serves general aviation; or some carefully regulated and modest expansion of John Wayne Airport.
Community Acceptance Doubtful It should count for a lot that community acceptance is a hallmark of successful base reuse. The problem starts with the fact that a big airport is being planned for the heart of a mature suburban area, and not on the outskirts of one. The flight tests in June 1999, with their substantial single-incident noise readings near schools and homes and visual observations of overflights, heightened concern and caused even county planners to reassess their rosy predictions about noise impact. It might be possible to build and operate an airport at El Toro that could be accommodated by the surrounding new cities, and we have held out that promise in various editorials. But now we come to the county's credibility as planning agent. There is a seven-year record of evasiveness on the unresolved operational questions. This latest proposal has crept back up to within a mere 9 million passengers of the huge 38-million passenger plan that we said back in 1996 would be too burdensome on the surrounding community. The two-airport system as planned, El Toro and John Wayne airports, is essentially a political construction. One never would set out to design such a thing unless ministering to warring constituencies required it. In a way, this is like planning airports by gerrymandering. The plan flies in the face of the logic that says airlines won't want to serve the same immediate area out of two airports. The new environmental impact report acknowledges conflicts for incoming planes at four other airports including John Wayne with those taking off from El Toro; these concerns have been raised previously in FAA documents and by pilots. It is very possible that planners are not leveling with the public at all, and that El Toro really is being groomed as the county's main airport, with John Wayne Airport left to serve general aviation. If that were to happen, all of this would have been about the county shifting its commercial air operations. The county's lack of forthrightness about all this is stunning. Supervisors in December 1996 passed an enabling resolution to appease concerned residents that said the range for the size of the airport would be between 10 million and no more than 25 million passengers. But only three years later, the latest EIR reveals how quickly their public promise has been discarded; the 29-million proposal stands as a direct violation of the supervisors' 1996 public promise. The county has learned little about its obligations to candor in the interim. For example, the latest environmental impact report deliberately selected for comparison with the airport the densest alternative non-aviation proposal, one long since overhauled and revised to a much more community-friendly plan. The county continues to encourage wishful thinking, to low-ball impacts, to compare apples with oranges and to hold its finger to the wind to determine what would be salable. It would have been better to propose a realistic airport, warts and all. If there is to be any airport at El Toro, it ought to be based on a forthright EIR that does not circumvent the 1996 stated intention of supervisors on size, and that outlines a flight plan likely to win FAA approval and acceptance by pilots. The failure to level with the citizens is a breech of public trust. It is possible that this airport might not disrupt the life that many have come to Orange County to seek. However, it is a big gamble, and one that becomes harder to predict without more certainty about how the airport will operate. Today, the voters are on course to go to the polls for yet a third vote related to El Toro in March still without knowing what kind of airport they might get.
Better Coordination Needed There remains a need to institutionalize more formally the regional approach to addressing future aviation needs. While El Toro is a desirable alternative because it is well on the way to implementation as a solution, there are other options that may be far less contentious to get the kinds of numbers that the region will need in the future. We should be clear that we don't want to see affluent communities shift their responsibilities to poor communities desperate for jobs. We also have to ask whether it can be good public policy to force a big public works project on such a large unwilling population. For all the importance of airport siting to the region, it is remarkable that this is being done on such an ad-hoc basis. Various points on the Southern California compass are trying to make sense of regional numbers provided by SCAG and use them as the basis for decisions about expanding existing airports or opening new ones. The FAA is charged only with the regulation of the operation and safety of airports and is not in a position to be a leader in the fair assessment of how regions and municipalities meet their future aviation needs. The argument for a state approach to Southern California's regional aviation needs for the future, perhaps coordinated by the governor, is strong.
What Should Happen Next 1) Measure F, The Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative, is a response to the disenfranchisement of citizens, but if every policy decision were subject to direct initiative, land-use planning would be chaotic. Already, the prospect of Measure F is causing problems. The law-enforcement community has been drawn into a conflict that is really about an airport because it is worried about its ability to get needed jail space built. The measure should be rejected because it is not the right way to restore sanity to the El Toro base reuse process. 2) Replace the Local Redevelopment Authority with a newly constituted group that reflects not just the county interests but those of local adjacent communities. The original LRA could be restored, with supervisors, the city of Irvine and Lake Forest, or other nearby communities could be included too. This is most likely to happen either through successful litigation, or by federal legislation. Don't count on the supervisors to correct the process. Their May decision will leave the county in a serious quandary about appropriateness of scale, and about whether the airport will operate as intended. The supervisors have demonstrated that they are incapable of getting this right by themselves. The only way an airport can be designed to be acceptable to surrounding communities is to include them directly in the planning process. 3) Either at the polls or through legal means, the upending of the federal base reuse process that followed passage of Measure A must be redressed. The passage of Measure A was the mischief-maker that initiated the disenfranchisement of the local community. A new and fairer base reuse process is needed. 4) Orange County voters eventually should have a chance at voting on a choice of carefully planned proposals for El Toro, an airport of modest proportions and realistic operating guidelines, versus the non-aviation plan of South County cities, with its "great park," commercial centers and residences. The latest Millennium Plan has been gaining interest and attention, and deserves a full public discussion. 5) A truly regional airport planning process that addresses aviation needs across the Los Angeles basin needs to be instituted. It should be one that takes into account the willingness and economic plans for communities that host air facilities, and should not place unfair burden on any one place, particularly LAX.