Metro Section
Orange County Perspective
Sunday, September 19, 1999
The El Toro Summer
Events of the summer of 1999 have reaffirmed the flawed nature of a planning process that, for better or worse, has brought this county to the brink of approval of a new commercial airport at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.
The county still has a simple problem at the root of the complex El Toro debate. That is, while there are persuasive arguments for a new airport to serve the suburbs in Orange County and elsewhere in Southern California, the fact is that a very large number of people in immediately surrounding communities do not want a commercial airport at El Toro.
Exactly what constitutes "the community" having final say over the future of the base is crucial. The problematic Measure A ballot initiative that passed in 1994 effectively redefined that constituency. For purposes of base reuse under federal guidelines, it became the larger Orange County populace, instead of the cities immediately surrounding the base.
That had political implications when the five-member Board of Supervisors became the lead redevelopment authority. Any schoolchild in Orange County can tell you that three constitutes a majority of five. In effect, the fate of the federal redevelopment process for a closed military base, which was supposed to be a community decision, was placed in the hands of three citizens elected from cities that do not border the base.
All of the economic and transportation demand arguments for a new commercial airfield inevitably run into this problem of what the "interested community" really is, and who decides for them. To say that Orange County, or Southern California, needs more air capacity, and to say that a new airport would be good for the economy, all resonate as powerful arguments. The question is whether it is good public policy, and whether it keeps faith with the spirit of the base reuse guidelines, to force a major airport "for the larger good" on a mostly unwilling surrounding population.
This is the core of the El Toro dilemma. This summer's developments have clarified that fundamental state of affairs even as they have complicated the larger question of finding a way out of the thicket.
In some ways it was simpler months ago. Few would have predicted early this year that the summer months would have been anything more than a prelude to approval, despite the controversy still raging in the community. On the calendar for December was the seemingly inevitable sign-off by supervisors on the environmental impact report for the airport. From the beginning, there has been a sense on all sides of the debate that the decision for an airport was made up front and early on, with the details to be filled in later.
However, the events of recent months have turned inevitability on its side. It seemed certain for example, that the test flights conducted over a period of two days in June would be little more than a pro-forma exercise. Instead, they energized surrounding communities to question assumptions about standards for acceptable noise levels. The superintendent of one school district said that noise recorded at an elementary school in the flight approach path raised questions about educating children. The chairman of the Board of Supervisors, unwavering in his enthusiasm for the airport, watched and heard airplanes, and acknowledged the need for more extensive noise mitigation.
Then two events changed the dynamics. The county in early August said it would not vote on the airport until next spring, in order to get everything done on the planning. A month later, opponents turned in more than twice the number of signatures needed to qualify their initiative for next March--before the planned May vote by the supervisors. That initiative calls for a two-thirds vote of the public before the county can build or expand airports, large jails within half a mile of homes and hazardous-waste landfills.
This is an enormously complicating development. It raises questions about whether the county could get any big infrastructure project it might need done, but it also signals the depth of community frustration with the skewed base reuse process.
Finally, the role of the Federal Aviation Administration took an interesting turn. The head of the agency said it would conduct its own independent evaluation of whether the airport was suitable, including holding hearings to examine safety and noise.
We wish we could say that by making a simple course correction the county could do a better job of planning for the future of the base. It may take the courts to sort it all out. The official closure of the base in July turned out to be a poignant moment, and an unusual one for its simplicity in the events of summer.