The force of staunch military opposition and more than 40 public speakers could not hold back what critics have long-labeled as the “march to Miramar” Monday after the board for the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority voted 7-2 to pick Marine Corps Air Station Miramar as the replacement site for Lindbergh Field.
The concept for Miramar would carve out 3,000 acres for a dual runway civilian airport that would run operations concurrently with those of the military, whose operations would be moved south, expanding the accident potential zone and noise contours over more of the Mira Mesa and Tierrasanta communities.
It would also require the relocation of portions of Highway 163 and Interstate 15 east at a cost running into the tens of millions of dollars.
The joint-use of Miramar is projected to be one of the cheapest options at $5.9 billion and, at 12 miles from downtown San Diego, is at the projected population center for 2030. Compare that to the Campo/Boulevard site at $16.7 billion, Imperial County at $17.4 billion and Camp Pendleton at $6.3 billion, with distances ranging from 45 to 104 miles from downtown.
NAS North Island is close to Miramar in price at $5.8 billion, but the concept was a long shot due to dangerous crosswinds and the adverse impact it would have on base operations.
In a meeting that lasted more than five hours, board members spent most of their time sitting diligently as homeowners, state representatives, city councilmen, mayors, community leaders and a congressman lined up to have their two-minute say on what many called an inevitable decision that was harmful to the military and unsafe for surrounding communities.
District 5 Councilman Brian Maienschein opposed the joint-use proposal, citing congressional opposition to the idea, in addition to the added noise and danger to surrounding communities.
“I don’t feel this is what’s best for our region,” he said.
District 2 Councilman Kevin Faulconer did not explicitly endorse Miramar, but said Lindbergh Field was not a long-term option.
“It is not the long term solution for our region’s long term air transportation needs,” he said.
State assemblywoman Lori Saldaãa, whose 76th district includes much of the peninsula, beach areas and central San Diego, acknowledged the airport authority was in a difficult position, but said that the dangers of joint-use far outweighed the benefits of moving Lindbergh Field.
Representatives from state Senator Krisitine Kehoe and state Assemblyman George Plescia also read statements opposed to civilian operations at Miramar.
Rep. Bob Filner (D-Chula Vista) chided the board for accepting the false assumptions of their staff in regards to a high-speed maglev/airport combo in Imperial County, which falls in his district.
But board member and District 4 Councilman Tony Young chastised public officials for politicizing a decision he said has been kept out of that arena, claiming such a move was a “win-win” move to gain “easy” votes.
“Obviously, this is not a popular decision,” Young said. “I truly believe that Miramar has to be a part of the solution for the long term airport needs of this region.”
The military strongly disagreed.
In a presentation to the board, Rear Adm. Len R. Hering, commander of Navy Region Southwest, read a prepared statement on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense, blasting board members and authority staff for ignoring the dangers of joint-use and their efforts to “assume away our mission.”
Herring also defended all of the military bases as being interdependent and part of a larger mobilization of U.S. forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
“They are a constellation of facilities that cannot just be relocated or replicated like a warehouse,” he said. “We are not moving out, we are getting bigger.”
However, Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert Leonard, commanding general for Marine Corps Installations West, took an even less conciliatory tone, calling the final analysis a “shocking disregard for public safety” while claiming many board members had Miramar in mind from the beginning.
“Miramar was the target before this process began,” Leonard said.
But Young refused that label.
“You’ve made an accusation and I don’t appreciate that,” he said. “You don’t know that.”
Young went on to press Leonard about the military’s planned replacement of the F-18 fighter jet with a new joint strike fighter jet still in development. Supposed plans to base those jets at Miramar around 2035 are important because the joint-use Miramar concept with the F-18 jets fails to pass the authority’s own Tier One Criteria’s noise threshold; without the jets, the concept passes.
Leonard went on to clarify that Miramar was the station “most under consideration,” but that the intent of military planners was clear and that airport officials should not put faith in the possibility that the military will move out in coming years.
“Hope is not a viable course of action,” he said.
That assertion did not bode well with some board members, who labeled the military as uncooperative in having an open dialogue with the airport authority in finding a mutually beneficial solution.
“We have no other solution. The other alternatives do not work,” said board member William D. Lynch. “People can think we haven’t looked at the other options, but they’re wrong.”
Lynch pointed out that the authority stood down during the Base Realignment and Closure process last year at the request of local military and city officials, but that the gesture has largely gone unnoticed.
“We’re looking for cooperation,” he said. “We would like you to factor us into your thinking.”
Other board members pushed back against the public questioning the board on what part of ‘no’ it did not understand from the U.S. Department of Defense.
Board member Paul Peterson answered with a question, asking whether military leaders could speak for those same leaders 20 years into the future.
“They can’t do it,” he said. “I’m saying that things change ” that reasonable men change in their opinions.”
Peterson’s ballot proposal calls for the airport authority work to “obtain approximately 3,000 acres of 23,00 acres at MCAS Miramar by 2020 for a commercial airport, provided necessary traffic and freeway improvements are made, military readiness is maintained” and that “no local taxes are used on the airport.”
The proposal also goes on to ensure that “overall noise impacts are reduced and necessary Lindbergh Field improvements are completed.”
The proposal is different from one introduced by dissenting board members Mary Teresa Sessom and Xema Jacobson, which did not call for a specific year and put the onus of securing the land on the willingness of federal military officials. It would also secure the area from being developed while in wait.
The alternative language was an about face for Sessom and Jacobson, who have been steadfast in their opposition to using military sites without official approval.
“I’ve always thought Miramar was the perfect place for an airport,” Sessom said. “But we don’t know when it’ll be available.”
In the meantime, the alternative proposal was meant to protect Miramar’s land from developers until the military acquiesced to allowing civilian operations or left the base altogether.
“We’ve drawn a line in the sand and have been really hard-headed,” she said. “If we’re serious about Miramar, we need that protection.”
Jacobson agreed, adding Peterson’s ballot language would only polarize the two sides.
“I really believe we need a cooling-off period,” she said. “We need to get the land in a way that we haven’t irked everybody.”
But the rest of the board did not feel the alternative language was specific or strong enough to stand against a coming decade of changing opinions and leadership.
“Being passive, we’ve done that before,” Lynch said.
Sessom countered that if the board approved Peterson’s language, the ballot would fail to stand up to a massive community opposition campaign.
“I think it’s doomed to failure at the polls,” she said.
The airport authority has been on a three-year hunt for a new site to replace Lindbergh Field. According to the agency, the airport’s capacity of 25 million passengers will likely be reached by 2015. Last year alone saw a 6 percent increase, from 16.4 million passengers served in 2004 to 17.4 million in 2005.
Lindbergh Field’s growth remains hampered by hills on the east and west ends that make it impossible for fully loaded trans-oceanic jetliners to operate. The site is also blocked in by the San Diego Bay to the south and entrenched development to the north.
The ballot language will be submitted to the County Registrar of Voters Aug. 11 in time for the Nov. 7 vote.