January 12, 1999

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take a few moments to elucidate some of my thoughts regarding this reuse process, and in particular, expand upon my comments which many of you may have read this morning in the Register article by Mary Ann Milbourn.

As everyone knows, I am no fan of this reuse process.

Pointedly, I believe it is exclusionary, tainted by special interests, and not in the County’s best interest.

During my time on the Board of Supervisors I have made every effort to increase communications on all fronts and to include those most affected – our residents – into the processes of government.

In the private sector, the process one followed on major projects was critical to overall program success and to the bottom-line of the company.

I believe it is just the same for the County.   A poor process leads to poor planning, and poor planning leads to consequences down the road which we should be ashamed to pass on to the future -- our children.

The El Toro reuse process, in its initial stage, actually set out on a positive course, including those most affected on the team to determine the base’s future.  And then we had Measure A.

Created by special interests in no one’s best interest but their own, Measure A just barely passed and sent the County down an exclusionary, divisive, and bitter path for planning what turns out to be the largest and most complex land use issue in Orange County history.

The people of this County were ultimately left out of the planning process because there was no process, only an airport plan.

I believe if you ask the one percent of the people who made Measure A a reality if they would do it all over again -- given the current planning process, the available information and divisive feelings in the County -- they would say no.

Ask any planner, land use or otherwise, on what role the general public should have in a planning process and not one, not one, will tell you that a vote at the very beginning, with no project or alternative information available, is wise or proper.

Instead, the public’s role should be included throughout the entire process, contributing opinions, information, and communicating their needs relating to the proposed project.

The public should be allowed the information in order to provide input at public meetings and, those with specific expertise, should be ‘tapped’ for advisory roles.  This way, the public can participate in a meaningful way.

I do not ever want another Supervisor to be put in my position or Todd’s position – pleading for information; apologizing for their local officials for being excluded from meetings; or explaining to a high school senior why his or her vote does not count when it comes to really important things.  Such a position is unfair to our residents and to the county as a whole – and, from my perspective, fairness is key.

El Toro is and will be ongoing.  But, if we can speculate for a moment, there could be many more major impact projects on the horizon in Orange County.

Seal Beach and Los Alamitos could well be the victim of the next round of base closures.  Could they become candidates for the next county versus local resident airport fight?

And, parenthetically, we are quite aware that those around John Wayne are adamantly against expansion.

I have given this a lot of thought, and for those of you who have read the paper this morning, you know that I am proposing is a referendum.  This referendum will require a vote of the people for such rare and extraordinary county-wide projects under control of the Board of Supervisors which have noxious impacts and multi-jurisdictional implications for the entire County.  I propose that any referendum occur at the very end of the planning process when all of the facts and alternatives have been analyzed.

Putting to vote such projects with county-wide consequences would have the effect of forcing all sides of an issue to work together for the greatest possible good of the County.

I am convinced that a 1% margin of victory such as we experienced with Measure A is neither fair nor productive and instead, I propose that a super-majority requirement would guarantee that communities interests’ were considered, debated, and addressed.

Before you react to that, permit me to clarify…  I am not talking Athenian democracy here, nor do I propose that the Board give up its authority for decision making.

This is an opportunity for the Board of Supervisors – and not special interests – to show some leadership in our planning processes.  It would be my hope that we could come together, as a Board, and offer a proposal based on this framework as a referendum to the people.

I believe that the Board’s role, as elected leaders, is to maximize participation on such major impact projects and to communicate and educate, not just those nearest a project, but everyone on a county-wide basis.

So I want to take this time to, not specifically address the El Toro issue, but rather to address what I believe is a challenge to our governance system and how we best plan for Orange County’s future.  For if we take the time to conduct an open, honest and inclusive planning process from the start, the final vote will reflect the public’s confidence in the planning process and their government.

At this time you will note that I am not offering very many specifics… let’s just say that I am exposing my thoughts to see what others have to say.   I believe this loose framework can be used as an outline from which to base future discussions and, hopefully, future action.

Also, please note that I am not offering this framework as a mechanism to slow growth.  On the contrary, growth, if properly planned, will only benefit our County.  I see this framework as a guiding principle in future planning processes which involve what I will label “noxious” uses, and let me define noxious use, according to my dictionary:  One that is hurtful; harmful to health or morals; baneful; pernicious; injurious; unfavorable; destructive; unwholesome.

Under noxious use I would include the development of new or expanded airports; I would include the expansion or siting of landfills within neighborhood areas; and the siting or expansion of correctional facilities over a size certain which do not include elected representatives of immediately adjacent communities and/or cities in the planning process.

These are examples of multi-jurisdictional projects which I believe contain the ingredients for future divisive battles and have the potential for government and special interests to eliminate the people from the process, yet they are projects needed to address the County’s growing needs and therefore we cannot ignore them.

Colleagues, we have seen what divisiveness and exclusionary practices have achieved over these last two years.  The results have been utterly destructive.

Let’s learn from our past and vow to seek a higher road for which to proceed on those projects which are certainly rare and extraordinary, and substitute them with new processes which are inclusive and informative.  Processes which seek the public’s participation and in return, shares with the public all the information for which to make final and valid decisions.

It is fair, it is straightforward, and I believe it will work to Orange County’s best interests.

Thank you.