It’s Time to Bring El Toro Debate Back Down to Earth : Officials must admit airport bias, weigh alternatives

In recent days, tensions between those who make policy and those who carry it out have been on view in the continuing conflict over the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station reuse process. On Nov. 21, County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier agreed to brief the Board of Supervisors regularly but only after a showdown with two members. Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson, who represents an area opposed to the airport, had wanted to circumvent Mittermeier by having planners report directly to the board. He and Supervisor Todd Spitzer had criticized the CEO after she refused information about lobbying trips to Washington.

To put this conflict in perspective, we need to back up in time. Late last year, a somewhat different board tried to give something to everyone in approving an international airport that was smaller than originally planned, which ensured the retention of John Wayne Airport and which offered a carrot to Irvine by banning westerly takeoffs from existing runways at El Toro. The actual size of the airport, which would be part of a two-facility system, would be worked out.

That all sounds like compromise, which is irresistible for elected officials. However, such broad instructions to planners may be less useful politically in producing a reuse plan that can win community acceptance. That is especially so when the laborious planning required to explore all the possibilities assumes a level of public trust that does not exist.

Suspicion among airport opponents has snowballed into mounting concerns about cost, safety and the credibility of the environmental impact report that recently was criticized by a judge. The board’s initial less-than-enthusiastic commitment to non-aviation uses has been followed this year by a full-blown fight with South County. Also, there has been further questioning about runway costs, and about whether promises can be kept.

Because the county never adequately justified its preference for an international airport over other uses of the base, the notion that the airport idea was driving all other considerations has taken firm root. This effectively has meant that opponents have never given the county what it says it most needs--a calm, deliberative environment in which to plan. A county populace fresh from the sting of bankruptcy has been in no mood to grant the level of trust that airport planners believe they are entitled to.

All of this has come down on the point people for airport planning, the CEO and airport project manager Courtney Wiercioch. Wiercioch openly complains that the airport opponents are being driven solely by emotion. On the other side, the perception remains that the fix is in for a big airport. Mittermeier and Wiercioch have found themselves, in effect, arguing for sufficient breathing room to do their jobs.

An underlying problem is that the policymaking supervisors have acted as if their instruction to planners enjoyed a sufficient degree of public support to insulate staff from political criticism. Yet it is apparent that this is not so, even as airport supporters keep pointing to two countywide ballot initiatives. In fact, as a recent UC Irvine annual survey made clear, no substantial level of approval exists. Fewer than one quarter of respondents saw a commercial airport as the best use for the base, and there was strong dissatisfaction with the way the county government was handling things.

Only the supervisors can fix what’s wrong with this process. They can acknowledge that the planning was weighted for an airport from the start and order all options considered equally. Or they can narrow the discussion to a small airport. That could make it possible to argue convincingly that a new airport will be less intrusive than what is there now, and lend weight to companion non-aviation uses.