NEWS ANALYSIS : Is End to O.C. Base Issue Near or Is This Just Another Twist?

For more than a year now, the debate over the future of El Toro Marine Corps Air Station has taken more dips and turns than the wildest, creakiest political roller-coaster ride anywhere in Orange County.

Competing egos and agendas have constantly threatened to throw the base conversion planning off track. And whenever there was the slightest chance that a communitywide consensus might be possible, the battle for power over the base would take another turn--a threatened lawsuit by those opposed to a commercial airport at El Toro, followed by a wild spin leading to a November ballot initiative asking county voters to approve an airport.

Suddenly, there’s a new twist: The powerful Irvine Co. may be making a move toward ownership of the 4,700-acre base--the largest piece of Orange County property that holds the promise of a development bonanza.

Under a plan disclosed late last week, the Irvine Co. and the federal government are discussing a land swap in which the development firm would take possession of the base in exchange for large parcels of wilderness that it owns near the Cleveland National Forest. Environmentalists have identified 10,000 acres of northern Orange County land that could become part of the trade.

The news of the potential land swap immediately set off speculation among various political factions that have wrestled for control of the military base because they disagree over whether a commercial airport should be developed there.

Is this just another leg in this tumultuous political journey, or is it the solution that can help end the unusual political battle that has split Orange County in half?

The answer to that question depends on who is asked.

Key county officials--who were criticized early on for not taking the lead in developing a post-military plan and were forced to give up sole control of the issue--see the Irvine Co.’s involvement as a way to shortcut the debate and settle the issue once and for all.

Some county supervisors say that if the base reverts to private ownership and remains in an unincorporated area of the county, then the Board of Supervisors could regain its place as the only land-use authority over the property.

Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder said the land-exchange proposal should be taken as vote of “no confidence” in the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, a multi-agency group formed out of political friction that is now attempting to devise a redevelopment plan for El Toro.

“I think people don’t see any hope in the process established here, and they began to look for other options,” Wieder said. “It’s a reflection of the political integrity of the planning authority as an objective policy-making body.”

A Washington base closure expert said privately that the Irvine Co.’s possible ownership of the base “appears to cut out the community” input, which would be “most unfortunate.”

Should the county try to exert control over the land, it can expect strong opposition from South County city officials who begrudgingly signed on to the El Toro planning board, which includes the county supervisors, three Irvine council members and one representative from Lake Forest.

“I think there’s a severe question about (the county having sole authority over the property),” said Irvine Councilman Barry J. Hammond. “If, in fact, it goes to private ownership, we will move ahead on annexation (of the base).”

Hammond said his city joined the planning authority board after receiving a commitment from the county to help Irvine annex the base, which lies within the city’s sphere of influence. Hammond said the city plans to hold the county to that pledge.

Hammond, Lake Forest Mayor Marcia Rudolph and Laguna Beach Councilman Wayne L. Peterson also maintained that the Defense Department already has recognized the planning authority board as the official planning group.

“Just because the property owner’s name changes doesn’t mean there will be a change in the development process,” Peterson said.

The early euphoria over the Irvine Co.’s possible involvement in the issue has led one anti-airport activist to caution against moving too hastily.

Doyle Selden, a resident of Leisure World of Laguna Hills and a member of the anti-airport group called Taxpayers for Responsible Planning, said planning studies now underway should be completed before any deal is struck with the Irvine Co. or any airport initiative is approved by voters.

“We are really upset with the simplistic statements which are made,” Selden said. “It’s completely clear to us that the more complex this is, the more we need a planning process.”

Pete Ciesla, the Navy’s El Toro base closure coordinator, agreed that the planning authority board would probably continue to help guide the base’s future use, even if the property ends up in private hands. “You still need to evaluate the impacts and look at things like (traffic) circulation,” he said.

But those who favor the development of a commercial airport at El Toro see it another way.

“The (local planning) process has all but fallen apart,” said Newport Beach Mayor Clarence J. Turner, a strong El Toro airport advocate. “If the base is given to the Irvine Co., you can pretty much forget about the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority.”

Instead of worrying over whether the land should become an airport, Turner said the county should begin negotiating a plan with the Irvine Co., on behalf of its cities, to share revenue from a commercial airport should the giant developer decide on that option.

There also is a new debate over the effect the Irvine Co.’s involvement might have on the November ballot initiative that asks voters to approve a commercial aviation and cargo facility on 2,000 acres of the base.

Newport Beach developer Buck Johns, one of the initiative backers, said the latest development should not impact the November election.

“The Irvine Co. has been unusually quiet on this issue,” Johns said, “but you have to stand back and ask what would enhance the value of the property already owned by the Irvine Co. around the airport. The answer to that is an airport.”

Wieder said this new twist may prompt more interest in the Nov. 8 ballot initiative.

“I think people see that everybody is getting their two cents in, so why shouldn’t they, too?” Wieder said. “This is a time for people to determine what the public policy should be, because there is no faith or confidence in the process already established.”

Local land-use attorney James E. Erickson, who previously worked on the El Toro issue, said that the initiative, if approved by voters, would be legally binding--no matter who owns the land--because it proposes a zoning regulation that the Board of Supervisors would have to follow.

What makes the situation unusual, he added, is that even before the county gets land-use authority of the property, the federal government can impose conditions on how it will be used before the transfer is made.

“I know that the real power lies in the County of Orange and the Department of Defense, and if they don’t agree, nothing happens,” Erickson said. “The initiative totally governs what the county does.”

But Hammond disagreed.

“The ballot initiative is nothing but an expensive opinion poll,” the Irvine councilman said. “There’s no way it can be enforced. This ballot initiative, at best, would force the County of Orange to change their general plan to say there’s an airport at El Toro. However, that has no binding effect on the Department of Defense.”

Given the acrimony over one of the biggest land-use decisions facing Orange County, some have speculated that it might be in the federal government’s best interest to turn the land over to the Irvine Co., even if it does not get any money in return.

The federal government hopes to sell bases to offset the environmental cleanup costs that come with closing them, but the relocation of the military to other installations and protracted legal or political fights between local factions threaten to delay the transfer of the property indefinitely. The proposed land swap, officials said, would eliminate the political hassles.

Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said it was too early to speculate about the political fallout such a plan could trigger.

“There is no verdict in on what the reuse of the base should be,” he said. “It’s not about winners or losers. As fast as this (proposal) came up, it could change next week. That has been one of the traits of the whole process. The one thing that I have always underscored in this process is not to underestimate the role of the federal government.”

Few are publicly questioning the Irvine Co.’s motives at this point, although for months many involved in the issue wondered why the development giant had remained silent for so long, particularly since it already owns nearly all the land that rings the base.

Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach), a former vice president of the Irvine Co., said he remembers hearing how the company’s founder became enraged with the federal government at the start of World War II when the company was forced under the War Powers Act to sell the land for $950,000.

“I think it’s quite normal for the Irvine Co. to begin negotiations with the federal government,” Ferguson said. “After all, the property belonged to the Irvine Co.”

However, Ferguson and Assemblyman Mickey Conroy (R-Orange) said these negotiations may be meaningless, predicting that the Marines would never leave El Toro because the federal government cannot afford the move.

Former Irvine Mayor Larry Agran, who earlier this year suggested a slightly different land swap between the Irvine Co. and the federal government, predicted that ultimately even the latest proposal would be doomed by the sour politics that has dogged the base reuse issue.

“There are naysayers who would rather fight over this thing for the next 20 years than make arrangements with a master developer to oversee development on a planned basis,” Agran said.

Times staff writers Kevin Johnson and Eric Bailey and correspondent Shelby Grad contributed to this report.