The final piece of the matrix representing six years of research into an alternative airport site fell into place Tuesday, May 16, as airport officials briefed the media on the long-awaited analysis on sole- and joint-use military concepts.
The so-called “Decision Document” provided a 102-page summary of thousands of pages worth of research into the feasibility of civilian and military joint-use airports at three San Diego military installations, including Camp Pendleton, Naval Air Station North Island and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.
Consultants for the San Diego Regional Airport Authority also completed an analysis of a concept that would put a dual-runway civilian airport on Miramar, with adequate separation between current military runways to the north.
But as the board for the airport authority prepares to receive and formally hear the studies, no one disputes the fact that there is no shining site.
“None of the sites on the list is a perfect site,” said Thella Bowens, president/CEO of the airport authority.
The document, prepared in large part by the authority’s consulting firm, Ricondo & Associates, outlines a comparative matrix between two civilian sites ” Campo/Boulevard and Imperial County ” and the military concepts.
According to the report, NAS North Island is perhaps the most infeasible of the three military airfields for falling short of meeting several key criteria. The configuration would entail two runways that intersect at a point on the part of the island facing Point Loma. A $2 billion, secure underground tunnel would transport passengers from an arrival terminal at Lindbergh Field, under the bay and to an isolated concourse between the two runways.
Crosswinds would make operations susceptible to delays of around 50 minutes, while up to 22,000 residents would be adversely affected by the new noise contour, depending on civilian exclusive- or joint-use. The concept would also force the “extensive relocation” of military facilities at a cost nearing $2.6 billion.
“We can’t say we won’t impact the efficient use of that base,” Greg Wellman, a lead consultant, told reporters.
Camp Pendleton and Miramar fared better in meeting the criteria. According to the study, Camp Pendleton would provide a marginal site for a joint-use airport due to a substantial amount of earth grading it would require and the adverse effects construction would have on 25 federally or state listed species that are either endangered or threatened. Also, noise impacts, while not significant, would still pose a problem to about 1,495 housing units, or about 4,000 people.
That noise contour is the most important difference between Camp Pendleton and a joint-use airport at Miramar, which would impact nearly 18,500 current residents and introduce more than 6,000 new residents to the impact area.
According to the report, it is that finding that makes joint-use at Miramar essentially infeasible. However, an airport at Miramar dedicated solely to civilian use would actually decrease the noise contour and shrink the amount of impacted residents to 6,240.
In fact, the report lists an all-civilian airport at Miramar as the most feasible in terms of meeting aeronautical, environmental, noise, market, financial and military criteria.
A civilian airport at Miramar would have stronger market acceptance than Camp Pendleton because it would be located in the county’s projected population center for 2030. Camp Pendleton would have difficulty securing trans-oceanic service due to its proximity to a dominant Los Angeles-area market.
The concept calls for a dual-runway airport just south and parallel to the air station’s current runways with enough distance between the two facilities to have simultaneous operations.
In certain circumstances, civilian and military flights could be shuffled among the four runways to accommodate inclement weather, military training exercises and increased demand, consultants said.
The site would also require segments of Interstate 15 and state Route 163 to be relocated further east to make room for the runways.
The report goes on to say that joint-use scenarios for Camp Pendleton and Miramar “would not introduce unacceptable interference to the military mission, degrade safety, impose security risks, or hamper the [U.S. Department of Defense] in training for and maintaining national defense readiness.”
But the military has repeatedly and emphatically said that any use of its bases in any form would negatively impact all of those key points. At the same time, some congressional representatives have been working to ensure that neither the airport authority nor the voters can circumvent a 1996 mandate disallowing shared-use of Miramar.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) has attached a provision in a $512 billion spending bill for the Department of Defense that would effectively ban any form of commercial use of the three military installations.
The bill must still be reconciled with the House, but if the provision survives and is signed by the president, doors to Miramar, Camp Pendleton and North Island would be closed for good.
Reps. Bob Filner (D-Chula Vista) and Darrel Issa (R-Vista) have also openly opposed joint-use. Filner, for his part, has lobbied the airport authority intensely in support of the Imperial County desert site paired with a high-speed maglev train.
Navy Secretary Donald Winter has also expressly come out against any use of San Diego’s military bases, which all survived the Base Realignment and Closure process last year.
The daunting military opposition spurred several inquiries at the briefing as to what action the board can possibly take against what may become federal law prohibiting shared-use.
Bowens refused to comment on the board’s behalf and defended the authority’s analysis of the military installations since the law that created the authority mandated it to study the sites.
“Those issues were not in play at the time of this study,” she said. “I think the money has been well spent.”
Bowens went on to point out that the site selection process has always been “board-driven” and that airport authority staff would not be making a recommendation when they present the reports to the board’s Strategic Planning Committee Monday, May 22.
The board will meet June 5, when it is expected to decide on a site to present to county voters on the Nov. 7 ballot.