El Toro Airport Comments Don’t Fly

Certain statements in a (Dec. 10) letter by Jan Mittermeier, chief executive officer of Orange County, are, I feel, quite misleading and tend to incorrectly affect public opinion regarding the reuse issue of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.

The letter misleadingly states that the reuse planning process now in place is designed to require analyses of both aviation and non-aviation uses of the El Toro site. Actually, Measure A, which narrowly passed in November 1994 (51% to 49%), specifically states that El Toro be used for passenger and cargo airport purposes and, further, that any land not used for the actual airport be used for aviation-compatible uses.

Jan Mittermeier also states that the planning process now in place is not predetermined. Well, if Measure A stands, nothing could possibly be more predetermined; all non-aviation and non-aviation-compatible uses are therefore excluded regardless of what might be the best use for the site.

The letter continues with the claim of a balanced and fair planning process that the county has initiated. This so-called fair planning process actually is comprised of a completely biased majority of county supervisors and other governmental and business interests that have so generously offered two seats out of 13 positions to those who would favor opening the planning process to all reuse options and not confine the redevelopment of El Toro to aviation exclusively!

HERBERT L. FRANKLIN

Laguna Niguel

Your Dec. 10 letter from Jan Mittermeier, CEO of Orange County, criticized a Nov. 29 Times editorial concerning funding for the county’s reuse planning process for [the El Toro] Marine Corps Air Station. Her letter is replete with misrepresentations. Mittermeier stated that your editorial “is based on the faulty premise that the county’s reuse planning process is to plan an airport at El Toro. . . .” But the fact is that Measure A mandates that “certain unincorporated lands within the El Toro [base] shall be used for a publicly or privately owned and operated airport.”

She states that it is irresponsible to delay the planning process. It must be noted that the planning process has been delayed by almost one year because the former planning body was disbanded by a 3-2 vote of our county supervisors. The process had been acceptable to the Department of Defense and to the South County communities adjacent to the base as required by Department of Defense guidelines. Another delay of months was caused by a change in the contractor performing the studies. This change will cost Orange County taxpayers another $1.5 million.

Mittermeier complains the editorial “cites those who suggest the planning process is predetermined. . . . It isn’t.” Earlier she mentions “the balanced and fair planning process which the county has initiated.” These statements bend the boundaries of truth. Look at the terms of Measure A. Look also at the group now doing the planning, the El Toro Airport Citizens Advisory Commission. Of the 13 appointees, a number have been ardent advocates of an airport. A leader of this commission is the same developer who originated and signed Measure A and funded the signature-gathering process for it. No one known to be interested in other potential uses has been appointed to this commission.

Many residents in Orange County feel it is irresponsible for the chief executive officer, the employee of all county residents, to represent the interests of a group of developers. It is her job to represent all of us.

JAMES E. FOX

Laguna Hills

CEO Jan Mittermeier writes in her Dec. 10 letter that the planning process for the Marine base should continue to go forward, and under the control of our infamous county supervisors, yet.

In view of the fact that a second ballot measure on the El Toro base reuse issue is to come before the voters next March, why isn’t this a waste of taxpayer money?

Let’s see now, just what are Jan Mittermeier’s credentials on this subject? Oh, yes, wasn’t she the one who stashed away in her desk drawer--until uncovered by your newspaper--the draft of the Leigh Fisher Associates feasibility study ordered by the Board of Supervisors?

Isn’t one bankruptcy enough for Orange County?

JEAN JENKS

Laguna Beach

In the [Op-Ed] article Nov. 19 (“O.C. Can Benefit From El Toro Site--but Not With an Airport”), UC Irvine professor G.J. Fielding writes as if the entire 4,700 acres of the present base would be “airport.” He conveniently neglects to mention that 2,700 of these acres will have the kind of development he favors, and that Orange County also will have the great advantage of an international airport to help our growing county economy as we face the expanding Pacific Rim, including the tremendous market in China.

Could it be that the professor is from South County and is just trying to find an excuse against an airport at El Toro?

IRVIN C. CHAPMAN

Costa Mesa

We acknowledge the good professor’s credentials on some transportation issues but do not find air transport information among them.

John Wayne Airport has a new terminal with only one 5,700-foot-long runway that cannot handle the types of aircraft needed if Orange County is going to fulfill its global marketing destiny. A further negative is the lid of 8.4 million passengers per year imposed by the U.S. District Court. [John Wayne Airport] will serve more than 7 million in 1995, with an annual growth of about 7%, which is well above the national average for airport passenger growth. Each year, thousands of visitors see Orange County tourist and shopping attractions via [Los Angeles International Airport], and most stay in Los Angeles instead of being in hotels here.

Fielding compares El Toro future economics with Ontario and Long Beach statistics. Most economic analysts would not consider these trading areas to be of comparable strength. In spite of the bankruptcy, this county has commercial viability, is growing in good jobs and has a strong future. All of these indicators emphasize the fact that a larger airport is required to support the long-range forecasts of growth for this county.

Studies now in progress by the El Toro Airport Citizens Advisory Commission consider other uses, which contradicts Fielding’s statement that “they have been preoccupied with a single idea--one more airport.”

EUGENE H. MORIARTY

El Toro Airport Committee

Santa Ana