A Nagging Source of Contention: Reuse Report

Lake Forest homeowner Joyce Zacher says she’s only asking for the truth. So far, she doesn’t think she has it.

What she does have is more than 5,000 pages of technical analysis that, she contends, highlight the benefits of a proposed passenger-cargo airport at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station while glossing over the negatives.

Zacher and other South County residents who live near the military base or under its flight paths are livid over the thick Draft Environmental Impact Report that they believe comes to an eyebrow-raising conclusion: The best way to control noise, traffic and pollution at El Toro is to build what would today be the fifth-largest international airport in the United States.

“It’s almost as if they think we’re unintelligent people, that they can stand there telling us how much cleaner the air will be, how much less noise there will be,” said Zacher, who has been closely following Orange County’s plan to reuse the 4,700-acre base when the military abandons it in mid-1999 as part of budget-cutting efforts to close less-vital military bases. “At first I tried to keep an open mind, I really did. But I no longer can. It’s gone too far.”

Three months before the Orange County Board of Supervisors makes the county’s most critical planning decision in decades, dissension over the airport plan has shifted to the validity of the project’s environmental analysis--on which the project’s future hinges.

There’s still time for county residents to voice their opinions on the draft document, and those comments will be included in the final version. Residents can attend a public hearing Wednesday in Irvine and submit written comments on the report before the Oct. 15 deadline. After that, residents can attend a series of public hearings to discuss the finalized study and the base reuse alternatives.

By Dec. 30, the county must submit the plan to the federal government, which will then make the final decision on whether to give the base to the county.

Of the three options under consideration--turning the base into a passenger-cargo airport, a cargo-general aviation airport or a mixed-use tourist attraction/educational campus--business interests and other supporters say a full-service airport would be best. They predict it would pump nearly $10 billion a year into the local economy and rival Los Angeles International Airport by venturing into lucrative Pacific Rim markets.

Airport supporters say they understand the fears of Zacher and others, but argue that those concerns are exaggerated. A properly developed and managed airport would be a good neighbor, they insist.

“Noise is going to reduce, traffic will be mitigated, and the biggest concern [South County residents] are going to have is how to spend the money from their property value increase,” said David Ellis, spokesman for Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, a political group favoring an El Toro airport.

Opponents, who have lost two countywide elections and a legal challenge to block an airport, believe they are fighting for nothing less than their social and economic survival. The noise, pollution and traffic that they fear would accompany an El Toro airport--a facility five times the size of John Wayne Airport and larger than San Francisco International--would destroy their cherished quality of life and deflate their home values.

“There is no doubt that an airport is one of the most controversial land uses in an urban area,” said J. Thomas Black of the Washington-based Urban Land Institute. “You’ll never get full consensus on an issue like this. And the focus of the debate is the environmental impact report.”

*

The Times conducted dozens of interviews with independent aviation consultants and academic experts specializing in airport issues, as well as South County residents, business people and government officials. The result: There remains sharp dispute, even among the experts, on virtually every point of the study.

One airport planning specialist consulted by The Times said he doubts the document’s credibility because he thinks its most fundamental premise--that an El Toro airport would draw 38.3 million passengers a year--is dubious.

“I just don’t see where they can get these figures from,” said professor Richard de Neufville, chairman of the Technology and Policy Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He expressed surprise that the county has not offered harder evidence that airline carriers are willing to commit to an airport venture. “The issue here is, how can they be sure there is the demand for it? I don’t see that happening.”

As a result, de Neufville said he has serious reservations about the document’s projections about traffic, noise and pollution and even flight patterns, which even the county and its consultants acknowledge rely on speculation about market and passenger demands 25 years into the future.

Adding to the dialogue is the intense mistrust by South County residents over any report commissioned by the county. Residents and civic leaders say several points in the environmental review are contradictory.

Among the study’s chief conclusions:

* An airport serving 38.3 million annual passengers in the year 2020 would mean less noise for many county residents who listen to the military jets now using the base. However, a passenger-cargo airport would average 51 flights an hour, 24 hours a day. That’s nearly five times as many operations as currently flown by the military, which observes a night curfew.

* There would be fewer cars on the road if the base is turned into an airport than with the non-airport option. Even so, a commercial airport would cause a tenfold increase--305,000 vehicle trips each day--over current traffic from the military facility.

* An airport would bring cleaner air even as planes, vehicles and other sources produce 80,009 pounds of pollutants each day. Emissions from new aircraft wouldn’t “count” toward regional air pollution totals--a conclusion that some critics find surprising--because authorities assume the planes will be flying out of another regional airport, if not El Toro.

* Compared to other reuse options, an airport would be the quickest to build and would reap the greatest profit by the year 2020. But in terms of employment, turning the base over to non-aviation uses would in later years produce nearly 20,000 more jobs than an airport.

*

The environmental impact report was produced by Costa Mesa-based P&D; Consultants Inc., which specializes in airport master planning and military base reuse projects, mostly in the Western United States. The firm was paid nearly $3 million to work with the county’s Environmental Management Agency and staff at John Wayne to produce the environmental analysis and several other El Toro studies.

Ronald Ahlfeldt, the lead consultant from P&D;, said the report is “objective,” and he hopes its depth assures South County residents that it is an unbiased document.

Ahlfeldt said the report represents the work of experienced traffic, noise and aviation consultants who were especially mindful of residents’ concerns.

“We’ve been extremely careful with this,” Ahlfeldt said.

Airport backers say it’s the opponents who are biased. If they only took time to carefully review the county’s study, they would understand that an airport could have a positive impact. For instance, in Irvine, where anti-airport sentiment runs high, areas that are now hardest hit by military noise would experience a significant decrease with a commercial airport because of quieter planes and different flight paths, according to the environmental study.

An example of the mistrust over the report’s findings surfaced recently when a Lake Forest resident discovered that a history of base plane crashes contained in the study hadn’t mentioned a spectacular accident that, at the time, was the worst aviation disaster in California history.

In June 1965, 84 servicemen and crew bound for Vietnam were killed when their C-135 transport plowed into the 1,300-foot Loma Ridge four miles from the end of the runway.

“The worst-case scenario, of course, is somebody wants to suppress this information,” said Steven Frogue, a former El Toro Marine who is now an American history teacher at Foothill High School and a trustee at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo. “I don’t know how I can trust anything in here.”

Kathleen Campini Chambers, a spokeswoman for the county’s base reuse project, said the 1965 El Toro tragedy was unintentionally omitted when the military failed to give the county complete crash records.

“This is exactly what the [public] comment period is for,” she said. “If people see problems here or there, they can bring it to our attention and we can correct it.”

Supervisors are expected to choose from the following options, but also have the power to craft a hybrid:

* An international airport serving passengers and handling 1.64 million tons of cargo a year--roughly the amount of cargo handled by Los Angeles International in 1994. Passenger and cargo service would cease at John Wayne, which would remain open for small aircraft.

* Other options would turn El Toro into a cargo and general aviation facility or turn the base over to non-aviation needs, such as business, residential, educational and recreational uses. These scenarios would keep John Wayne open for passenger service.

What follows are the key issues addressed in the environmental report:

Demand

* Does Orange County need a second airport?

The report predicts an El Toro airport could attract 38.3 million passengers a year by 2020.

“We need to capture that opportunity here,” Ellis said.

A large part of that market is expected to come from San Diego County, where more than 27 million passengers a year are expected by 2010. Currently, 12% of all San Diego County residents--and 20% of those living in the northern part of the county--use either John Wayne or LAX, according to the San Diego Assn. of Governments.

Others, including airport foes and even some supporters, say the passenger projections are too optimistic and overlook potential airport expansion at John Wayne, Long Beach and Ontario.

The Southern California Assn. of Governments, which advocates an El Toro airport, also says the county’s projected usage figures are too high. A more realistic goal is about 18 million annual passengers by 2020--less than half the passengers predicted in the environmental report.

Opponents of an El Toro airport say the answer to greater demand is to expand John Wayne and use El Toro for something else. John Wayne served 7.2 million passengers in 1995 and could expand to 15 million annual passengers, according to the report.

“Why build a second airport when we have one that can already meet most of the need?” said Bert Hack, a South County resident and co-chairman of Taxpayers for Responsible Planning, a group fighting the airport option.

It’s unclear which commercial and cargo carriers would commit to an international airport at El Toro--especially if they are already doing business at John Wayne or other area airports.

But MIT’s de Neufville says that is a key issue that could mean the difference between building a successful airport and one that nobody really wants.

“It’s not a situation of ‘If you build it, they will come,’ ” he said.

Noise

* How disruptive would an El Toro airport be compared to the existing military base use?

The report concludes that noise levels would be lower surrounding an El Toro airport than they are now, and most experts agree. However, they say that noise would be heard more hours of the day.

Noise levels would decline largely because loud military aircraft exercises would no longer occur and the commercial and cargo aircraft that would use El Toro would have to meet strict federal noise limits, according to the report.

As a result, the off-base areas now most severely affected by noise from El Toro would shrink from 63.61 square miles to 17.46 square miles in the case of a passenger-cargo airport and to seven square miles in the case of a cargo-general aviation airport, the document says.

According to Hugh Parry, a Seattle-based aviation noise consultant who has done hundreds of projects at airports nationwide and is not involved in the El Toro debate, an airport at El Toro would reduce noise.

Noise durations, however, would increase for thousands of residents, according to the report, which is why some critics say it is unfair to represent an El Toro airport as being quieter.

Robert Samis, a Maryland-based aviation consultant hired by South County cities opposed to an El Toro airport puts it this way: “If you try to measure the noise from a dripping faucet, it wouldn’t even register. But try listening to that all night long when you’re trying to sleep.”

For example, according to the study, one area in Aliso Viejo now experiences about 34 total minutes per day of noise from the base. Noise in the neighborhood would drop by more than seven decibels if an airport is built. However, that area would also hear airport noise for a total of 1 hour and 26 minutes per day, the report concludes.

A large number of airport flights would occur at night or early morning, when noise is most annoying, the report states.

It is possible for El Toro to ban night flights, but new federal standards make that more difficult.

Flight paths determine where noise is heard. The county’s reuse plan predicts that an airport would in general keep the flight paths established by the military.

If the county decides to change the size or type of the airport currently proposed, it could mean homes previously unaffected by military noise could find themselves in the middle of an airport’s flight path.

Vince Mestre, the noise consultant working with Ahlfeldt, concedes there is no sugar-coating the noise impact that would accompany an El Toro airport: “There’s going to be significant noise. We’re not downplaying that. People should know that.”

Traffic

* How would an El Toro airport affect traffic along local streets?

The report says an airport would bring less traffic than non-aviation uses.

One Southern California traffic consultant who reviewed the study and spoke only on the condition that he not be identified said it is impossible to verify the findings because they don’t include basic details such as weekday peak-hour traffic conditions at key intersections and the number of vehicles likely to be using certain roadways.

Ahlfeldt said he understands why some residents want such detailed information but said it would be premature to study traffic in depth for a plan that has yet to be agreed upon.

“That’s the kind of analysis that would come at a later stage, when it is decided what the base reuse will be,” Ahlfeldt said. “We’re not there yet.”

Pollution

* What would an airport mean to air pollution levels?

The report says a commercial airport at El Toro would dump 80,009 pounds of pollution--mainly emissions from planes and vehicles--into the air every day, almost nine times as much as the military now discharges.

But the report says an airport would actually make the air cleaner. How can both statements be true? Because the report--and the South Coast Air Quality Management District--draws a distinction between regional and local pollution.

In Southern California as a whole, air would become cleaner because fewer people would be driving to far-flung airports, according to the projections. In Orange County, however, pollution would get worse.

“The pollution with an airport is going to be horrible,” said Jean Jenks of the Laguna Hills branch of the Audubon Society.

The AQMD is not commenting on the airport plan until it finishes studying the environmental report.

Safety

* Is it safe to fly commercial and cargo planes from an airport that would be less than eight miles from John Wayne?

The report notes that Chicago and New York have two airports just a few miles apart, and many military bases nationwide have been converted to public airports. Yet some local pilots--many of whom live near El Toro and under proposed flight paths--express concern that the base is unsafe for commercial use.

They are concerned that runways at El Toro don’t meet Federal Aviation Administration safety standards. Two of the runways slope too high, some areas of concrete are too weak and parallel runways are too close together. The county believes these problems can be solved with FAA waivers and some new construction.

“It has me very worried,” said Laguna Niguel private pilot J.M. George Mon.

The Virginia-based Air Line Pilots Assn., representing 44,000 commercial pilots nationwide, has also written county officials expressing safety concerns, although the group has endorsed an El Toro airport.

Ahlfeldt, the county’s consultant, said those concerns are exaggerated.

The FAA, the arbiter on safety at an El Toro airport, is paying for a portion of the county’s study and expects to issue a statement on safety issues.

Economics

* How does the county compare the three base reuse options in terms of cost, jobs created and financial benefit?

The report projects that all three options would ultimately generate about the same degree of economic benefit.

The question is how quickly the county wants to achieve those benefits.

By 2020, an airport would generate $9.9 billion annually for the local economy, compared to $4.2 billion for the non-airport option, according to the report. If projected to 2045, however, all three reuse plans would pump between $9.6 billion to $9.9 billion into the local economy each year.

For employment, an airport would create 35,839 jobs by year 2020 compared to a non-airport option that would create 27,820 jobs. But if projected beyond that, a non-airport option would produce about 20,000 more jobs than an airport.

It would cost more than $1.6 billion to build an airport, including a terminal, repairs to the airfield and off-site road improvements, according to the report. That’s compared to $338 million for non-aviation uses, and even less for a cargo facility.

These are the figures that Laguna Hills Councilwoman Melody Carruth says are continually overlooked. She says she also believes the non-aviation projections in the county’s report are overly conservative, meaning a private venture, such as a theme park, could make even more money.

“They haven’t taken a serious look at finding viable non-airport uses,” Carruth said.

Others say the county’s goal should be to find a reuse that would reap the greatest benefit as soon as possible, and one that can easily include much of the existing base. And that is undoubtedly an airport, they say.

“Using an airport facility for an airport makes eminent sense,” said Chicago-based aviation consultant Margery Al-Chalabi. “An airport generates more jobs in one area and throughout a region than just about any facility that you can think of.”

An airport would be built using bonds that would be repaid by revenues, protecting taxpayers from loss, according to the report. But a non-airport option could end up being a taxpayers’ burden if not successful, it warns.

Supervisor Marian Bergeson, whose district includes the base, said it’s the back-and-forth disagreement that worries her most about the El Toro reuse plan. There seems to be no end to the fighting, she said.

“I think people are looking for something to have faith and confidence in, and they have serious questions about this document,” said Bergeson, who believes a major international airport does not belong at El Toro. “We’re looking at a lot of benefits, but also a lot of trade-offs. Not everybody is going to agree on the outcome, and I just wish that weren’t the case.

Charting the Options: Where will noise go up? Where do they claim it will go down? Details of all three El Toro reuse options are spelled out in maps and charts. A25

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

El Toro Options

Orange County’s Board of Supervisors will soon choose how they want to use the 4,700-acre El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, being abandoned by the Marines in mid-1999. The three alternatives: an international passenger-cargo airport, cargo-general aviation airport, or a mixed-use option. Supervisors may also craft a hybrid of their own choosing. A look at the three scenarios and the factors supervisors will consider before they make this critical planning decision.

International passenger-cargo airport: Would serve 38.3 million passengers per year and move 1.64 million tons of cargo on two intersecting runways; 3-million-square-foot terminal with 92 gates for passengers and a 1.96-million-square-foot cargo building surrounded by compatible uses. Average of 50 hourly departures/arrivals around the clock.

Cargo-general aviation airport: Would move 960,000 tons of cargo yearly and serve local general aviation needs using just north-south runway; 1.1-million-square-foot cargo building surrounded by compatible uses, including research and development space. Average of 50 hourly departures/arrivals around the clock.

Mixed use: Visitor-oriented attraction and institutional or educational facility, such as a college campus surrounded by residential and recreational areas and land for light industrial and research and development.

****

What’s the Impact?

The impact of all three options, from pollution to jobs created, varies greatly. What to look for with each of the possible uses:

****

Pollution emitted (pounds per day)

Commercial-cargo airport: 80,009

Cargo-general aviation airport: 47,142

Mixed use: 29,111

Military base in 1994: 9,280

****

Traffic (average daily trips)

Commercial-cargo airport: 305,240

Cargo-general aviation airport: 263,390

Mixed-uses: 310,610

****

Development Costs

Commercial-cargo airport: $1.6 billion

Cargo-general aviation airport: $341 million

Mixed-uses: $338 million

****

Jobs Produced, 2020/beyond

Commercial-cargo airport: 35,839/same

Cargo-general aviation airport: 30,533/51,830

Mixed-use: 27,820/54,777

Note: A cargo-general aviation airport and mixed-use options will take many more years to achieve maximum build-out.

****

Jobholder Average Salary

Commercial-cargo airport: $33,400

Cargo-general aviation airport: $34,400

Mixed-uses: $31,500

****

Annual Economic Impact, 2020 and Beyond

Commercial-cargo airport: $9.9 billion

Cargo-general aviation airport: $5.7 billion

Mixed-uses: $4.2 billion

Note: A cargo-general aviation airport and mixed-use options take many more years to achieve maximum build-out. At that time, all three options will generate $9.6 billion to $9.9 billion for the local economy.

****

Net of Noise

If an international passenger-cargo airport is built, many residents living under flight paths will hear different amounts of noise--some less, some more than they experience with current military flights. Based on computer models, total time that selected locations will hear noise equivalent to 65 decibels--about the same as a vacuum cleaner--and louder. In minutes unless otherwise noted:

*--*

Passenger-Cargo Existing Airport Military Noisier places AV1: Aliso Viejo 1 hour 26 mins. 34 LN1: Laguna Niguel 1 hour 7 mins. 31 LW1: Leisure World Laguna Hills 1 hour 41 mins. 48 MV2: Mission Viejo 41 18 CH1: Cowan Heights 12 0 O1: Orange 18 0 T1: Tustin 23 0 Quieter places LH1: Laguna Hills 0 18 I5: Irvine 0 38 I2: Irvine 0 20 LF1: Lake Forest 0 33 DP2: Dana Point 3 27 LB2: Laguna Beach 4 28 LN2: Laguna Niguel 5 21 Places with roughly same noise RSM2: Rancho Santa Margarita 19 15 FR1: Foothill Ranch 13 13 MV1: Mission Viejo 16 15

*--*

****

What’s Coming

County residents may get involved in El Toro’s future by submitting comments on the draft environmental impact report (EIR) and by attending a series of public meetings to be held during the next several weeks. The county recently revised some of its meetings, to be held at the county Hall of Administration unless noted otherwise. Important dates, subject to change:

Oct. 2: Orange County Board of Supervisors, acting as the El Toro Local Redevelopment Agency, meets at 6 p.m., Irvine City Hall

Oct. 15: Deadline for comments on draft EIR

Oct. 16: Joint meeting of El Toro Citizens Advisory Commission, county Planning Commission and county Airport Commission; time to be announced

Oct. 24: Citizens Advisory Commission meets, 4 p.m.; time may change to allow more people to attend

Nov. 20: Citizens Advisory Commission meets, 1:30 p.m., and county Airport Commission meets, 7 p.m.; both will make base use recommendations

Nov. 21: Planning Commission meets at 1:30 p.m. to issue recommendation

December: Supervisors meet to consider recommendations and make their final choice on reuse; no date or time set

Dec. 30: County deadline to submit final reuse plan to U.S. Department of Navy; plan sets off a round of federal studies and meetings, including a more detailed analysis of base contamination; military has no final date to retire base, but expects it to be around mid-1999

Getting, Commenting on Report

The draft environmental report and its supporting documents are available at county libraries. The entire report or portions of it can be purchased by calling (714) 660-1150. Written comments on the report can be addressed to:

Environmental Management Agency

Environmental and Project Planning Division

Attn: Paul Lanning

County of Orange

P.O. Box 4048

Santa Ana, CA 92702

Fax: (714)-834-6132

Where El Toro Would Rate

If a passenger-cargo airport at El Toro were in operation today, it would be one of the world’s largest--serving five times as many passengers as John Wayne Airport. Here’s how passenger totals would compare to other major U.S. airports’ 1995 passenger loads, in millions:

Chicago (O’Hare): 67.3

Atlanta: 57.7

Dallas/Ft. Worth: 54.3

Los Angeles: 53.9

El Toro Airport: 38.3

San Francisco: 36.3

John Wayne Airport: 7.2

****

In All Directions

An international passenger-cargo airport at El Toro would mean an average of 50 arrivals and departures per hour--24 hours a day. A cargo-general aviation airport would also run around the clock. Likely paths aircraft would take and operational hours at both kinds of airport:

From/to North

Arrivals: 3.3% for both a passenger-cargo and cargo-general aviation airport

Departures: 96.6% for cargo-general aviation airport; 29.2% for passenger-cargo airport

From/to South

Arrivals: 96.6% for both a passenger-cargo and cargo-general aviation

Departures: 3.3% for cargo-general aviation; 1% for passenger-cargo

To East

Arrivals: None projected

Departures: 69.8% for passenger-cargo

From West

Arrivals: .1% for passenger-cargo

Departures: None projected

When Flights Would Happen

Passenger Service

Day: 75-80%

Evening: 15%

Night: 5-10%

****

Cargo Service

Day: 17%

Evening: 18%

Night: 65

****

General Aviation

Day: 85%

Evening: 10%

Night: 5%

Sources: Orange County’s El Toro Marine Corps Air Station Community Reuse Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report, Air Transport Assn. and Airports Council International

Researched by RENE LYNCH / Los Angeles Times

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Knowing the Noise

Here is how noise generated by some planes that would fly out of an El Toro airport compares to the current Marine Corps F-18 fighters, in decibels:

Note: Departure measurement point is 21,326 feet (about four miles) from the start of take-off roll. Approach measurement point is 6,562 feet (about 1.2 miles) from runway threshold. All distances approximate.