Foes of Airport Call on Board to Defer Action

Saying the draft environmental impact report on the redevelopment of El Toro Marine Corps Air Station into an airport “is deficient,” Supervisor-elect Todd Spitzer and three of the county’s state legislators called on the Board of Supervisors to defer action when it meets Tuesday.

In a letter sent to the five supervisors, Spitzer and the legislators said the environmental report “does not sufficiently disclose potential impacts” from noise, traffic safety and air pollution, offers no “mitigation measures for these concerns,” and “makes vague and incorrect assumptions about” the ability of the surrounding communities to cope with airport development.

Also signing the letter were Sen. John R. Lewis (R-Orange) and Assemblymen Bill Campbell (R-Orange) and Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside). All four are opponents of a large, commercial airport at El Toro.

The supervisors must decide Tuesday whether to endorse the environmental impact report and which of three reuse options to pursue in the future. The county’s Planning Commission, Airport Commission and El Toro Citizens Advisory Commission have given their approval to the report and plans for an airport at El Toro.

County officials stress that this is not the final vote on El Toro’s future. Choosing a base reuse plan will trigger a new round of impact studies that could take as long as two years to complete and will entail public hearings and more votes by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

But critics fear that if the current board endorses an airport, there will be little chance that a future board will reverse course and decide to use the land for something else.

“All the proponents want to rush the project,” said Spitzer, who takes office along with Supervisor-elect Charles V. Smith on Jan. 6. “There are so many unanswered questions that a certification of the EIR . . . is like me asking for a verdict from a court before presenting evidence.”

Jeff Brown, a resident of Dana Point and an airport opponent who helped draft the letter, said the four officials are concerned about “rubber-stamp thinking” reminiscent of the “follow-the-expert method of decision-making” that led to the county declaring bankruptcy two years ago.

*

The letter refers to the bankruptcy and “the lessons we learned” in urging the board “to ask the tough questions and to demand accurate answers,” concluding that “the impact of an airport of this size . . . on the quality of life in our county is profound--far too important to simply trust the ‘experts’ on missing details.”

“The letter is not about yes or no on the airport,” Morrow said. “It is about the magnitude of what we are about to undertake and the potential consequences that could affect generations. . . . We have a lot of experts casting doubt on the EIR, and they deserve to be heard.”

The letter, which was addressed to Board Chairman Roger R. Stanton, who is leaving office in January, also said that approval of the inadequate report “will provoke costly litigation.” Noting that the county must defend its position with taxpayers’ funds, it said the county would be better served by “a stronger, more detailed report.”

It is widely acknowledged that feverish lobbying has gone on in the past several months leading up to Tuesday’s votes and hearing.

But last week Stanton indicated he might be reassessing his position, which has previously found the economic pluses of an airport more persuasive than the impacts it would bring to the quality of life in surrounding communities. Supervisor Don Saltarelli also has suggested he might reject the plan because of an inadequate environmental report.

Newly appointed Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson said last week he would seek a postponement of the crucial board decision.

*

The three options the board must consider are:

* Option A: An international passenger-cargo airport, capable of serving up to 38.3 million passengers a year, surrounded by compatible uses. Such an airport could average 50 flights an hour, around the clock. This option would keep John Wayne Airport open just for general aviation needs.

* Option B: A cargo airport, capable of moving 960,000 tons of cargo a year and serving local general aviation needs, surrounded by compatible uses. Such an airport could also average 50 flights an hour, around the clock. This could allow for expanded commercial passenger operations at John Wayne.

* Option C: Non-aviation, mixed uses, including a visitor-oriented attraction and an institutional or educational facility, such as a college campus, surrounded by residential and recreational areas and land for light industrial businesses and research and development. This would leave John Wayne the county’s only airport.

In anticipation of Tuesday’s large turnout, and because of complaints that working residents cannot attend the 1 p.m. supervisors’ meeting, the county has put together the following speaking schedule: elected officials from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m.; recognized groups opposing an airport from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; recognized groups supporting an airport from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m.; and a meeting break from 4:30 to 4:45 p.m. General public comments will begin at 4:45 p.m.