Closed Tustin Base Still Faces a Long March to New Life

With its historic blimp hangars empty, its gates locked and weeds sprouting from cracked pavement, the shuttered Tustin air base has become a symbol of government at its slowest.

For more than six years, the state, the city of Tustin, a fistful of school districts and the land’s rightful owner--the Navy--have wrestled over the base’s future.

But that long struggle will reach an important juncture Dec. 18 when the Tustin City Council is expected to approve critical environmental documents that could clear the way for the base to be born again as a sprawling community of homes, schools, a golf course and even a homeless shelter. But getting to this point--just this far in the planning process--has been a grind.

The anticipated council action will change the city’s general plan to match its base redevelopment map. But more actions by both the Navy and the city will follow before the first bulldozers can arrive, said Dana Ogdon, the city’s senior project manager.

“This is just one of many things we need to do in anticipation of developing the property,” Ogdon said. “We’ve been ready to go for some time.”

The old base sits on 1,700 acres, 1,600 of which are in Tustin. It was targeted for closure in 1993 and finally became vacant in July 1999.

In recent months, disagreement has centered on a demand by two Santa Ana school districts that want the city to abide by an earlier agreement to turn over land for future campuses. Last month, the districts sent a letter to Navy officials charging that Tustin’s plan constitutes racial discrimination because it forces an estimated 56,000 minority students in Santa Ana to continue attending overcrowded schools.

Even as the districts prepare this week to meet behind closed doors to consider a compromise, the City Council is set to move ahead with its plan for the base’s new look.

But several deals on the table could trigger a new environmental review, said Ruben A. Smith, an attorney representing the Santa Ana school districts. Rancho Santiago Community College District meets Monday to consider the undisclosed compromise offer; Santa Ana Unified meets Tuesday.

“They are trying not to have it affect their [environmental work] but from our standpoint, it would,” Smith said.

The timing of the council action, falling near Christmas, outraged local opponents of the city’s plan.

Longtime Tustin activist Berklee Maughan, who recently lost a bid for a council seat, said officials should wait until next month to vote without the distraction of the holidays.

Maughan has sent letters to the city protesting the level of pollution that the new roads, homes and businesses would generate, especially the potential effect on the eight schools planned near or on the base.

“This [proposal] is not in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community, and in fact puts residents at risk,” he said.

Ken Morrison, who also ran for council, said the city’s review addressed possible development alternatives, but only larger ones that would cause even greater harm to the environment. That purposely set up the city’s pre-chosen option to be the one with the least impact, he said.

Morrison said the city has failed to consider less intense options, ones with fewer homes, for instance.

Navy officials so far haven’t embraced Tustin’s plan, mostly because of the large amount of proposed housing, according to Randall Yim, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations. The city wants the base handed over without any cost, but for that to happen, Tustin must prove that the redevelopment would replace the economic activity that was lost when the base closed. Housing, by itself, doesn’t provide that economic muscle.

City officials, though, say their plan follows federal law and will hold up.

The environmental review outlines the base make-over in broad terms: a maximum of 4,049 homes; 11.4 million square feet of commercial business and light industrial space; 77,401 jobs created; 85 acres of parkland; three new elementary schools, one high school and a college campus; a 192-bed transitional living center for the homeless.

The report concedes there will be environmental risks but concludes they would be acceptable given the benefits of the project.

Among issues raised in the city review:

* One or both of Tustin’s historic wooden blimp hangars could be razed. The county has agreed to take over one of the hangars as a park site, and hopes to use it for activities such as car shows and motion-picture filming. The other hangar needs about $22 million worth of repair and would be demolished if a private developer doesn’t step in.

* The project exceeds “thresholds of significance” set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and reactive organic compounds. The pollution cannot be significantly lessened, the report acknowledges, and some of the mitigation--steps like widening roads in adjacent cities--is beyond Tustin’s control.

* There is no way to lessen the impact the project will have on the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue and nearby Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway. The roads are already congested and expected to worsen.

* An agreement is being negotiated between the city and the state Department of Fish and Game for the capture and relocation of southwestern pond turtles found on the base. The agreement calls for the city to contribute money to “improve, restore or create the relocation site as turtle habitat.”

* Some 700 acres of farmland will be lost to the new homes and businesses. The Tustin base represents some of the last remaining stretches of agricultural land in Orange County.

Local cities, businesses and residents that reviewed the final report also raised concerns about pollution and traffic. Several said the city failed to identify funding sources for many of the proposed solutions to those problems.

“We continue to be concerned with the general issue of funding, phasing and improvement of roadways in the project area,” Irvine city manager Allison Hart wrote in a letter to Ogdon. She said Irvine studies showed that roads in the area were more congested than shown by Tustin, and that there was no commitment by Tustin to reduce the traffic that will flow onto Irvine streets.

Tustin, in turn, promised in its review to pay its “fair share” for easing street congestion, but didn’t identify how. That issue will be addressed as the city moves toward more specific planning for the base, Ogdon said.

Santa Ana’s planning and building agency raised similar issues, including the impact on nearby roads and Tustin’s assumption about who would pay for improvements. For example, Tustin stated that Warner Avenue would be widened to six lanes by Santa Ana. But Santa Ana has neither the money nor a plan to do so, wrote agency Executive Director Robyn Uptegraff.

“We are disturbed by the fact that the [review] is not responsive to what we consider to be extremely important environmental issues,” she wrote. “These issues are not new and have been repeated on several occasions throughout the reuse planning process.”

Ogdon’s response is similar to the one offered to Irvine: Additional environmental reviews will be done as individual development projects are approved.

If the council approves the environmental documents as expected at its Dec. 18 meeting, the next move will be up to the Navy.

The Navy must approve the city’s reuse plan and make sure it meets federal standards. Only then can the property be turned over to the city.