Rialto ponders future of city airport

San Bernardino County Sun

By Nikki Cobb
Staff Writer

4/4/05

RIALTO Waxing wistful about the possibilities for redeveloping its 1,100 acres, city officials are trying to figure out what to do with Rialto Municipal Airport.

The airport was once envisioned as an up-and-coming commercial center. But somehow, those plans never got off the ground.

The 1994 closing of Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino and its redevelopment into San Bernardino International Airport dashed the hopes of Rialto's leaders.

San Bernardino International got air traffic that otherwise might have come to Rialto.

"The main thing that changed when Norton was converted to a civilian airport was whereas previously Rialto might have been the only facility for overflow of small- and medium-sized aircraft from Ontario, then San Bernardino became an option,' said Richard Scanlan, director of airport and solid waste management for Rialto.

Rialto's airport is limited by its size. It has two runways, the main one 4,500 feet long and 100 feet wide.

"We had hoped we could have an extension of the runway so we could accommodate corporate jets,' said Councilman Joe Sampson.

San Bernardino International's main runway is 10,000 feet long and 200 feet wide. Improvements are planned that will make the runway bigger.

"They are going to be able to handle the largest aircraft that exist,' Scanlan said. "We are limited to small- and medium-sized aircraft.'

Sampson said, "We felt we could get the spillover from the Ontario airport. Instead we were just kind of stagnant.'

The Rialto airport faces one of three possible fates: It could remain as it is; it could be scaled back, freeing up some land for other uses; or the city could relocate its operations to San Bernardino International.

The city is in negotiations with developers Lewis-Hillwood LLC to plan uses for the airport and the surrounding land a total of 1,100 acres.

City officials say they would like to see the land as mixed-use, with some business, some industrial and some residential development.

They're most eager to see retail development on the north side of the property, the side fronting the Interstate 210 extension project. The freeway is scheduled to be completed in 2007.

But any thought of selling the airport land is complicated by Rialto's financial obligations to the Federal Aviation Administration. The agency has given Rialto grants for airport improvements and land acquisition.

Improvements like asphalt or other infrastructure are considered to have a 20-year life, after which the city has no obligations to the FAA for repayment.

But grants for land acquisition obligate the city forever. If the city sells any land that was purchased with FAA grants, it has to repay 90percent of the price to the FAA.

Scanlan said there's debate as to when the 20-year clock started running on federal grants for infrastructure. There was funding awarded in 1993, obligating Rialto until 2013. But a later grant is disputed.

"In 2001, a grant was applied for and approved by the FAA,' he said. "But no funds were ever received or used. The FAA has the position that though no money was used, the grant was awarded and accepted.'

That would obligate Rialto to pay the FAA back if the airport was closed before 2021.

Councilwoman Deborah Robertson said though the city had accepted the grants, things had changed.

"It put us into a dilemma,' Robertson said. "We had just received grants from the FAA for lengthening runways. But the (Norton Air Force Base) closure caused us to take a whole new look at how we use the land.'

But FAA officials say the airport is still needed. They say it's a "reliever' airport, taking some pressure off of Ontario International Airport by providing a base for small aircraft.

And they strongly oppose its closure.

"The FAA has recognized the importance of the airport with a substantial investment of federal grant funds for airport construction and improvements,' said FAA Airports Division Manager Mark A. McClardy in a letter to Rialto City Administrator Henry Garcia.

The letter states that if the city tries to sell airport property the FAA will go to court and ask for its money back.

But Rialto officials continue to look for ways to make a profit off the airport land. Sampson said the airport never fulfilled its earlier promise.

"At one time we seemed to be getting a few more people coming in with the airport,' Sampson said. "All of the sudden that quit when Norton closed.'

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 07:12 am:

More on a Southern California International Airport

By ELIE A. SHNEOUR

Contributing Voice
Published April 4, 2005

Elie A. Shneour's column last week about locating a regional airport between San Diego and Los Angeles generated a number of reader e-mails and questions. In this column, he tries to answer some of the questions.

There appears to be considerable interest and concern in and around San Diego about our airport situation. My two recent articles on the subject, published by The San Diego Union-Tribune and by Voice of San Diego, have generated a large amount of favorable responses by e-mail and by telephone. In these articles, I have suggested one major international airport for both Los Angeles and San Diego in between these two cities would make the most sense. However, a few of you wonder whether I have a secret agenda directed at an eventual takeover of Camp Pendleton for that purpose. Nothing of the sort! Camp Pendleton has been and should remain an important military base and a buffer against any kind of civilian encroachment. We should all be grateful for its protective existence.

What I have in mind is a major international airport built eastward away from the coastal fog belt. It should be serviced by high-speed frequent ground rail transportation from both San Diego and Los Angeles. It turns out that both San Diego and Los Angeles need a new international airport. San Diego, however, cannot sustain one such airport on its own for the foreseeable future. This was made abundantly evident by the establishment and the subsequent cancellation of a British Airways slot at Lindbergh Field. But the idea of eventually building two major airports about 125 miles apart makes no economic sense. We should certainly keep and expand Lindbergh Field as an important regional airport. But that is not nearly enough for the longer term.

Let us assume that San Diego and Los Angeles leaders were diligent enough to consider such a major Southern California International Airport. The next question is where could such an airport be physically located? I have extensively visited and flown over the region up to a hundred miles east between Oceanside and Dana Point. There are a number of possibilities around that region, all of them with difficult access and use for a major airport. But that has been the case for all the potential locations studied by numerous Los Angeles- and San Diego-based committees for their own respective airports. There are no easy solutions, but there are far better solutions for one airport than for two of them. We really ought to examine that possibility in earnest.

Dr. Elie A. Shneour, a native of France and WWII U.S. veteran, is president of Biosystems Institutes, Inc. and Research Director of Biosystems Research Institute of San Diego.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=euLTJbMUKvH&b=312470&ct=613957

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 07:14 am:

Airport plan needs miracle named Miramar

UNION-TRIBUNE

April 4, 2005

On the airport, I'm an agnostic.

Oh, I have a few fly-by-night opinions, but they're hardly holy writ on a sulfurous subject that has tormented San Diego County for easily half a century.

In my experience, Lindbergh Field – knock on wood – has been a pretty good airport, particularly for those who live fairly close by (but not too close, as in ear-split Point Loma).

In a recent poll of 65,000 passengers, conducted by the Airports Council International, Lindbergh was honored as the third-best airport in all the Americas, behind Halifax, Canada, and Minneapolis.

That's quite a beauty contest.

Clearly, our petite charmer would be worthy of preservation as is if it weren't for the dead-certain experts who predict that in 10 or 20 years Lindbergh's maxed-out single runway will start stunting San Diego's growth.

How can you argue against future economic vitality?

Short answer: You can't. Not without turning your back on jobs and prosperity for your kids and grandkids.

At the same time, it seems obvious that Miramar, if it were released from active military duty, would be a godsend. Game (finally) over.

But if the Pentagon, in its finite wisdom, deems Miramar necessary for national defense, how can you stand up and argue that it's more valuable for civilian commerce?

Short answer: You can't. Not in a gung-ho county that salutes in its sleep.

So, like many San Diegans, I'm torn between a stubborn affection for what we have in Lindbergh and the yearning for a miracle that appears to be a mirage in Marine camouflage.

As early as next year, county voters will pass judgment on the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority's final choice, selected from a pool of nine current finalists, two of which are in the desert. Another is out in Campo.

Five military sites, including Miramar and Camp Pendleton, are still in play, but no one imagines fighting the Pentagon.



So, I scan the heavens, as well as the headlines, for a hopeful sign that does not simply belabor the obvious.

Wish I could say my attention has been rewarded recently.

Last week, an advisory group of diverse regional leaders took what was billed as an important vote to determine what local airline travelers would consider a reasonable amount of time to get to and from a new airport.

The high-powered panel determined that the travel time should not be more than – drum roll – an hour for most county residents.

The 14-member Public Working Group, which is counseling the airport authority on its search to replace (or expand) Lindbergh Field, deliberated seriously on this weighty matter. Reporters took notes. News editors took note.

The predictable result barely merited passing mention.

Consider a couple of truly newsworthy headlines that would have had readers spitting up their cornflakes.

Panel Insists New Airport Be As Close as Nearest Starbucks for All Residents.

A magic trick. The movable airport.

The other extreme.

Airport Advisers Endorse 3-Hour Trip to New Desert Runway.

Be sure to pack water before you leave home.

You could stop a thousand San Diego County residents on the street and 90 percent would say a half hour or less would be a utopian drive time to the airport, but more than an hour would be a total drag.

In North County, hour-plus drives to San Diego are already sending droves of air travelers to Orange County terminals.



A prediction: If the new airport isn't located near the heart of the county, then blocs of voters will reject it out of hand.

Unless . .

Unless the airport is sold as part of a rapid-transit system that makes sense to people who are in the habit of going to the airport in cars.

What a revelation it would be if we were focused on the efficient use of all of Southern California's airports, linked by high-speed, possibly maglev, trains suspended over the freeways.

San Diego developer Sandy Shapery is working on precisely that vision, an integrated land-air system that would encourage the use of jumbo planes with more passengers. Net results: fewer flights; specialized airports; reduced drive times.

There's the wave of the future, a new faith that might attract converts among skeptics like myself.

The agonizing search for a stand-alone San Diego County airport, for 50 years the region's holy grail, is beginning to feel like the last gasp of the past.

Logan Jenkins can be reached at (760) 737-7555 or by e-mail at logan.jenkins@uniontrib.com.


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/jenkins/20050404-9999-1m4jenkins.html

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 07:20 am:

El Toro goes nuclear? - OCR letter 4/4/05

We have a great opportunity to provide for future power needs ["Another dark summer?" Opinion, March 29]. El Toro has plenty of space for new power plants.

We could put one or two nuclear plants the size of San Onofre there. While are thinking about things we need, there is also plenty of room for a water treatment plant and an oil refinery. Also, these things would provide plenty of new jobs locally, so the freeways would not be so congested.

Jim Hamilton
Newport Beach

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 11:19 am:

L.B. Airport

Long Beach Press Telegram

4/4/05

Just what should be the City Council's "commitment to the City of Long Beach?" JetBlue CEO Dave Barger [Letters, March 31] implies that the council should be committed to blindly following the recommendations of airport "experts" and "airport staff."

Contrary to the suggestions of Barger and the Press-Telegram, I think the council is on the right track by carefully considering the concerns of tens of thousands of residents living in airport-impacted areas of the city (hardly the "small but determined group" repeatedly referenced by the Press-Telegram).

I question Barger's suggestion that because of JetBlue, our "tourism-related businesses are thriving." No one has done a simple study to determine whether this is true. It seems just as likely that most of the airport traffic is comprised of residents of neighboring communities who are avoiding Orange County or LAX airports.

Even if tourism is getting a boost, the council is doing the right thing by placing the quality of life in our neighborhoods above the interests of airport vendors and downtown tourism businesses. Does Barger really think that city tax revenues on food and beverage sales at the airport will bail us out of our budget crisis?

Andrew Jones
Long Beach

In reading the various opinions of the airport "expansion" over the last few weeks, I'm struck by the terminology used, as if the act of renovating an antiquated, run-down terminal in a major U.S. city which will give business travelers and vacationers another convenient and comfortable way to fly in and out of Southern California, somehow becomes seen by a relative few as a pro-business attempt to expand the airport.

The real issue, especially with regard to JetBlue, is whether the city will honor its word to the carrier and improve the facilities.

Kenneth Dean Hinkle
Long Beach

If Dave Barger, JetBlue Airways president and chief operations officer [Letters, March 31], recommended to his management team that JetBlue begin serving in-flight meals to its passengers, he would be laughed out of the boardroom.

The airline industry has learned over the past five years that food service does not make a contribution to the profitability of an airline. If food service made money, JetBlue would serve meals in a heartbeat.

Food is a conundrum for JetBlue in Long Beach. Their solution is to push the food service obligation on the airport. JetBlue is enjoying one of the most robust profits in the airline industry and it can afford to hand out free sack lunches to its customers. By doing so, the problem would be gone. But it would hurt the profitability of their business to provide "greatly enhanced food selections" to its own passengers.

The outstanding question remains: If JetBlue was so deeply interested in our city's real economic benefit, then why didn't JetBlue place its orders for airplanes and demand they be manufactured at the Boeing commercial plant in Long Beach?

Laura Sellmer
Long Beach

In the last three months I've flown in or out of Long Beach six times. On a recent trip I didn't have time to go to the Prop Room, so I had to grab something at the so-called "food concession" in the lovely and oh-so-stylish terminal/gate area.

Fresh fruit was offered, but the bananas were brown. Cold sandwiches stared at me from the refrigerator but didn't look appealing. The other options were bagged peanuts, snacks and candy. I opted for a manufactured version of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that cost me almost $5. It was cold from the 'frig and tasted a bit stale.

When flying out of Long Beach, I always have to make a stop at Subway to get food for the flight. In JFK, however, I can buy a tasty sandwich within the airport for the trip back home.

Diane L. Weinberger
Signal Hill

The letter from Dave Barger, president of JetBlue [March 31], should be a wake up call to the City Council. It amazes me that they want more business, and more people to come to Long Beach, but go out of their way to prevent this from happening. It doesn't surprise me that the City Council would sell out the people of Long Beach for a few votes. At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that I did not vote for any of them, and never will.

J.W. Dierks
Long Beach

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 07:41 am:

Congressional demand to ignore military bases causes heat

Tuesday, April 5, 2005

By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer
North County Times

SAN DIEGO ---- Members of the authority created to find a spot for a new regional San Diego airport voted Monday not to immediately respond to new congressional demands that the authority promise to ignore local military bases as potential sites until November.

Instead, authority board members voted to create committees to talk to state and federal legislators.

And the board voted to wait until next week to decide how to respond to recent congressional letters demanding that the authority extend its promise not to study local military bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Miramar until the Pentagon completes its base closure process in November.

The letters were sent two weeks ago and signed by every member of San Diego County's federal and state congressional delegations.

The demands, meanwhile, created sharp debate among authority board members for nearly two hours.

Board member and city of San Diego Councilman Ralph Inzunza called the demands "political grandstanding," by legislators seeking votes, and said the orders called into question whether the authority was actually in charge of the airport search.

"We're either independent or we're not," Inzunza said.

By contrast, board member and Oceanside resident Robert Maxwell said the state-created authority had been given a "direct order" by legislators, and that the board should immediately respond by saying it would be happy to extend the no-study promise.

"It's insubordination for you to go back to your commanding officer and argue with him, or discuss with him why he (gave) the order," Maxwell said.

Other board members, such as San Diego lawyer Paul Peterson and San Diego real estate developer Paul Nieto, worried that extending the no-study promise could destroy the authority's chance to consider the military bases in their search ---- if department of defense officials put Marine Corps Air Station Miramar or Naval Air Station North Island on their May list of bases that could be closed in May.

The defense department is compiling a list, to be released around May 16, of bases that could be closed in the newest round of military downsizing.

The congressional letters argued that unless the authority promised not to study any local bases as potential airport sites until November ---- even if the tentative list is released in May ---- its interest could sway defense officials to close local military bases.

The airport authority was created by the state legislature in 2001 to run Lindbergh Field and to look at all sites ---- including local military bases ---- that could be used to build a new regional airport to meet increasing airport needs throughout the county.

The authority is supposed to narrow its search and put a potential site before local voters in November 2006.

Authority board members previously promised local legislators that they would not study military bases until the tentative base-closure list was released in May.

Board chairman Joe Craver said Monday that the authority has kept that promise.

But the new congressional letters demand that the authority promise not to start studying any bases until November, when President Bush is expected to sign off on which bases should be closed.

The letters said that the 12 major military bases located within San Diego County are not only vital to the national defense, but they are an important "economic engine" that pump jobs and dollars into the county.

Peterson and Nieto said if the authority promised not to even think about any military bases until November, the authority ---- and residents in the region ---- could lose out on potentially great sites for a new regional airport. If any local military bases are slated for closure, it would start a "feeding frenzy" of developers, environmental, homeless and other special interest groups which would begin immediately lobbying to buy the land, he said.

"Reality is that on May 17th, if there's a (local) airbase on the list, everybody and his brother is going to be moving in on that," Peterson said. "For this board to say they're not going to be part of that process ... I think would be a disaster. I think we'd be derelict in our duty."

Board member Xema Jacobson said that would not happen because the state legislation that created the authority promised the authority "first dibs" on any military base if it was closed.

But other board members, and authority general counsel Breton Lobner said the language in that promise was vague, and could be overridden by federal orders in any case.

Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.

By EDITOR (68.5.102.62 - 68.5.102.62) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 07:43 am:

L.A. ELECTIONS
Parks to Back Hahn's Rival
Villaraigosa's efforts to woo black voters get another boost with the former chief's decision.

By Richard Fausset and Jessica Garrison, Times Staff Writers
April 5, 2005


Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard C. Parks said Monday that he plans to endorse Antonio Villaraigosa, giving the mayoral challenger another high-profile ally from the city's black community, which had overwhelmingly supported James K. Hahn in his 2001 race against Villaraigosa.

"I came to the conclusion that he gave the city the best chance to make some impact on some important issues," Parks said in a telephone interview. "The issue of leadership, the issue of integrity and the issues of the performance of the city."

Parks was the city's second black police chief — until Hahn pushed him out in 2002. That move has cost Hahn considerable backing among black residents, who were once among his most loyal supporters.

Parks' endorsement could undermine Hahn's attempts to woo back his black base. Parks ran for mayor and came in fourth in the March 8 election, but a Times exit poll showed he had won a majority of black votes. Those voters could prove critical to the winner in the May 17 runoff.

The Parks endorsement also comes on the heels of nods from other prominent black politicians such as county Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) and is yet another crucial sign of support for Villaraigosa, a city councilman, from leaders in South Los Angeles.

"Antonio is lining up endorsement after endorsement of key African American elected officials," said political strategist Darry Sragow, who is unaligned in the mayor's race. "And these are happening in a paced way that continues to build momentum for him."

But to secure those votes, Villaraigosa may have to overcome what one of his supporters, the Rev. Ozell Cliff Brazil of Bethel AME Church, calls the "fear of a brown mayor" — that is, a concern among blacks that a vote for Villaraigosa will help Latinos consolidate power in Los Angeles at their expense.

Parks said he plans to campaign vigorously to convince black voters that Villaraigosa is a safe bet.

"I hope … the black community does not let color get in the way of choosing the best person," he said.

A spokesman for the Villaraigosa campaign declined to comment on the endorsement, which is scheduled to be formally announced at 9 a.m. today at the Ted Alexander Science Center School near Exposition Park.

The Hahn campaign, meanwhile, downplayed its importance. "Antonio Villaraigosa has had four or five different positions on Bernard Parks," said Hahn strategist Kam Kuwata. "But Bernard Parks has had one consistent position in the mayor's race, and that is to be against Jim Hahn."

Hahn has repeatedly attacked Villaraigosa for waffling, saying that Villaraigosa told San Fernando Valley voters in the 2001 campaign that Parks was not "the right person for the job" of police chief and later told voters in South Los Angeles that he was "committed to working with" Parks.

Parks was widely thought to have entered the mayor's race as a grudge match to wound Hahn — a charge he has consistently denied. As he campaigned, he blasted Hahn for a lack of leadership and the investigations into city contracting that have plagued his administration.

In that sense, the endorsement comes as no surprise.

But Parks and Villaraigosa differ significantly in their politics, although both are Democrats who represent urban Los Angeles.

Parks, who tends to be more conservative, has frequently been critical of unions, while the more liberal Villaraigosa is beloved by many in the city's labor movement.

Still, the two men have been close on the City Council and can often be spotted slapping each other on the back or greeting each other warmly.

On the day Parks moved into his City Hall office two years ago after being elected to the council, Villaraigosa — with news cameras in tow — showed up to help him haul boxes around.

The two men and their families have also dined together.

For the last few weeks, Parks has been coy on whether he would endorse Villaraigosa. When queried, he would offer a Cheshire cat grin and refuse to answer, saying that he was going to meet with Hahn before making up his mind.

The two met last week in South Los Angeles. Kuwata said the meeting went "as expected." "It was very clear to Jim that Parks was going to oppose him. Before, during and after," Kuwata said.

On Monday, Parks said he was most concerned about restoring "integrity" to the mayor's office.

Parks also said the two men did share some common ground. A vehement opponent of Hahn's $11-billion modernization plan for Los Angeles International Airport, Parks said he was impressed that Villaraigosa had voted against the plan over the objections of the city's union leaders.

The former police chief also said he liked the candidate's ideas about adding LAPD officers without increasing taxes. And he said that Villaraigosa had "verbally committed" to trying to solve what Parks sees as dangerous problems with the city budget.

"I don't expect we're going to agree on 100% of the issues," Parks said, "but I believe we'll be able to work on 100% of the issues — although everyone may not get everything they want."

Also on Monday, Walter Moore, a Republican lawyer from Westchester who finished sixth in the March 8 election with 2.8% of the vote, endorsed Hahn. Moore had said that he was inspired to run for mayor by his outrage over to Hahn's $11 billion plan to modernize Los Angeles International Airport.

In a statement released by the Hahn campaign, Moore said, "Jim Hahn is straight with you and he follows through on what he says he's going to do. That's the difference in this race."

The Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley voted Monday to endorse Villaraigosa.

By EDITOR (68.5.102.62 - 68.5.102.62) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 07:48 am:

From above:

A vehement opponent of Hahn's $11-billion modernization plan for Los Angeles International Airport, Parks said he was impressed that Villaraigosa had voted against the plan over the objections of the city's union leaders.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 07:50 am:

[SD] Airport agency urged to cool its jets

Lawmakers want review of military sites delayed
By Jeff Ristine
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

April 5, 2005

Faced with mounting bipartisan hostility over its strategy for studying potential future airport sites, San Diego's regional airport agency likely will agree next week to keep its review of military installations on the back burner until November.

But members of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority board said yesterday they also may seek "first dibs" on any suitable base if efforts fail to insulate the county's military installations from this year's round of Defense Department base relocations and closures.

"When there's a base closure that's announced, there's a feeding frenzy," said board member Morris Vance, the mayor of Vista.

Legislation giving the airport authority first chance at the bases would provide some assurance while the process plays out, Vance and others said.

If a San Diego County base on the authority's list were recommended for closure in May, the board had wanted to be able to begin studying it then.

Now, the board likely would wait until November – a change stemming from an ultimatum Thursday from San Diego County's four state senators and eight Assembly members.

The lawmakers said efforts in the Legislature and Congress to "maintain a strong military presence" in California could be jeopardized by any discussion over alternate use of the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, North Island Naval Air Station and other sites for a civilian airport.

The board put off a vote on a new project schedule until it meets Monday. It left little doubt it will succumb to the pressure.

"We have to listen to what those folks are saying," said board member Mary Teresa Sessom, the mayor of Lemon Grove.

But Sessom said the agency also needs face-to-face meetings with state and congressional officials to repair their fractured relationship.

One critic of the airport authority's work so far, Assemblyman George Plescia, said he is "definitely open to talking to them about the issue and their concerns."

But Plescia, R-San Diego, said the board has been sending the "wrong message" when others are fighting to preserve San Diego's military infrastructure.

The board had planned to consider how to proceed with five military installations on its list of potential airport sites May 17, the day after the Pentagon's deadline to identify proposed base closings nationwide. Besides Miramar and North Island, the agency wants to examine the suitability of East Miramar, Camp Pendleton and March Air Reserve Base near Riverside, along with the possibility of using property occupied by the Marine Corps Recruit Depot to expand the footprint of Lindbergh Field.

Since March 22, the county's congressional delegation, California's two U.S. senators, San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy and state legislators have sent letters to the airport authority warning that the May date would be too early to study military sites.

"Your current efforts may well have unintended consequences that could have far reaching effects," the legislators wrote.

Though it was less blunt than the congressional letter, the legislators' message made the same request – remove all military bases from analysis until November – and it gave the agency 10 days to develop a new schedule.

By November, the base closure list is expected to be acted upon by a commission, the president and Congress.

The new schedule, it turned out, already was ready.

Ricondo & Associates, the consulting team on the site selection project, said it would have analysts work on nonmilitary sites only until November. The study will address such issues as airspace, social impact, noise, air quality and financial feasibility.

Locations in Boulevard, Borrego Springs and the Imperial County desert are on the list, although one or more could be eliminated next month when the board considers accessibility issues.

By waiting until November to analyze military sites on the same issues, the review wouldn't end until March or next April. The authority would then have to choose an airport site and ask voters to approve it in November 2006.

San Diego Councilman Ralph Inzunza, an authority board member, questioned whether the compressed schedule left enough elbow room for a decision on a site and a successful ballot campaign, noting work on measures for the San Diego Convention Center and Petco Park began a year or more ahead of a public vote.

"You might as well delay to November of '08," Inzunza said.

Board members also speculated on how to avoid being placed at a disadvantage in any scramble for abandoned military property.

Paul Peterson, a lawyer appointed to the board by Murphy, noted the Pentagon urges communities to develop contingency plans for their bases even as they lobby to retain them.

"Everybody and their brother is going to be moving in on this," Peterson said.

Legislation that established the authority identifies it as the only "agency" empowered to acquire airfields abandoned by the military.

But the authority's general counsel, Breton K. Lobner, cautioned that the legislation is far from definitive.

Jeff Ristine: (619) 542-4580; jeff.ristine@uniontrib.com


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050405-9999-1m5airport.html

By EDITOR (68.5.102.62 - 68.5.102.62) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 08:05 am:

Documents Sought in Corruption Probe
Authorities are examining mayor's '02 Asia trip that involved airport and port deals.
By Patrick McGreevy and Noam N. Levey
The Los Angeles (CA) Times, April 5, 2005


In the last few weeks, federal and local authorities investigating Los Angeles city contracting have asked for information about a trip Mayor James K. Hahn took to Asia in 2002 that led to a controversial agreement with a Taiwanese air carrier.

In a detailed letter sent to the airport, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office on March 21 asked for contracting documents and communications between airport officials and EVA Airways, a Taiwanese carrier that Hahn wants to relocate from Los Angeles International Airport.

The district attorney's office and the city Ethics Commission also requested information on travel expenses for Hahn, his deputies and Leland Wong, who served on the Airport and Department of Water and Power commissions under Hahn. Federal investigators have also asked for documents related to Wong's tenure on the Airport Commission , which ended in 2003 when Hahn moved Wong to the DWP Commission. Wong resigned the next year amid controversy over alleged misuse of his employer's funds for political purposes.

The requests, which were obtained by The Times on Monday, were made just two months before the May 17 mayoral election and could complicate Hahn's bid for another term. Challenger Antonio Villaraigosa has made a top campaign issue of the year-plus investigations into Hahn administration contracting.

"It's the last thing he needs," said Republican strategist Allan Hoffenblum. "It's the corruption issue that has put Hahn in the position he is in . and it is the single issue that could cost him the race."

Hoffenblum, who backed Hahn in 2001, said the news could put the mayor on the defensive after several weeks in which Hahn has aggressively attacked Villaraigosa.

The investigators appear to be focusing on a controversial arrangement spearheaded by the mayor's office that would have awarded space at the Los Angeles port to Evergreen Marine, a shipping company, and also moved EVA, an affiliate, to Ontario International Airport from LAX.

The latest demands began March 18, when the city Ethics Commission asked the airports department, known as Los Angeles World Airports, for Airport Commission resolutions approving the payment of travel expenses for a 2002 Asian trip by Wong, Hahn and several of Hahn's top aides.

In November 2002 Hahn led the 10-day trip to East Asia, which he trumpeted as an important campaign to boost tourism and strengthen business ties to the Pacific Rim.

The trip featured a visit to Taiwan, during which Hahn and the EVA Airways chairman signed a tentative agreement to have EVA move the airline's cargo operations to Ontario, where the city has been trying to shift air traffic to alleviate congestion at LAX.

On March 21, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley and Lt. Brian Hale of the district attorney's Bureau of Investigation sent a letter to the airport agency requesting the same information as sought by the Ethics Commission, as well as EVA Airways lease contracts, staff recommendation letters and all correspondence between commissioners and airport staff about EVA Airways from January 1998 through April 2003.

Head Deputy Dist. Atty. David Demerjian, who is chief of the Public Integrity Division, and Ethics Commission Executive Director LeeAnn Pelham both declined comment Monday.

Also last week, federal investigators from the U.S. Department of Transportation asked the airport for information about Wong's tenure as an airport commissioner, according to a source familiar with the request.

Airport spokeswoman Nancy Castles said the airport is cooperating with investigators. Hahn spokeswoman Shannon Murphy said the mayor's office would also cooperate.

The requests are the first to come to light since federal prosecutors last August subpoenaed the e-mails of Hahn and three aides.

The Times reported in May that the State Lands Commission was looking into whether aides to Hahn improperly interfered on behalf of Evergreen Marine in negotiations for a lease at the city's port to curry favor with its affiliate, EVA Airways.

Evergreen had expressed an interest in 2002 in expanding its port operations in Los Angeles and was competing with two other firms for 43 acres on Terminal Island.

In 2003, the Harbor Commission considered a proposal by two commissioners to lease that land to P&O Nedlloyd, but an aide to Hahn intervened to stop it because the mayor's office wanted to "build a long-term relationship" with Evergreen and EVA, Liu said last year.

The Harbor Commission has since solicited new bids, and the panel voted to enter negotiations with P&O in December.

Liu denied that the city broke any rules in linking the airport and harbor deals, because the city has an interest in both.

Curtis L. Fossum, senior counsel for the State Lands Commission, said at the time the inquiry was aimed at making sure the port, which is operated under a state trust, was not shortchanged to benefit the airport agency.

The Times reported last year that Wong, while serving on the Airport Commission in 2002, was also working as a consultant for Evergreen Marine.

Shortly after he informed the Ethics Commission about that job in an October 2002 report, Wong accompanied Hahn to Asia, where city officials signed agreements between Evergreen Marine and the Port of Los Angeles, and between EVA Airways and the airports department.

Port contracting was harshly criticized in a 2003 audit by City Controller Laura Chick, and auditors' notes obtained by The Times indicated that Wong played a role on both deals.

E-mails obtained by investigators, as well as The Times, confirm that Wong was in the loop about the talks with EVA, even requesting to review documents involved in the agreement a month before the Asia trip.

Wong's role as a paid consultant for Evergreen Marine shortly before he was involved in city talks on Evergreen and EVA could be a conflict of interest, according to Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

Records released by the airport agency to the Ethics Commission indicate the airports department paid $25,600 for Wong's travel expenses for three Asian trips in 2002.

Hahn's expenses included $4,500 for airfare for the mayor's travel to South Korea, China, Japan and Hong Kong from Nov. 16 through Nov. 26, 2002.

Accompanying Hahn were several mayoral deputies, City Council members and a number of business leaders who had donated to Hahn's 2002 campaign to defeat the secession of the San Fernando Valley.

By EDITOR (68.5.102.62 - 68.5.102.62) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 08:06 am:

Influence Peddling in Airport Contracts
Panel acts on lucrative LAX concessions due to expire after the May 17 mayoral election.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin and Jennifer Oldham
The Los Angeles (CA) Times, April 5, 2005


Despite travelers' poor reviews of the shops and restaurants at Los Angeles International Airport, the city's Airport Commission on Monday unanimously approved the extension of lucrative concession contracts without discussion or debate.

The extensions, which were approved as several powerhouse City Hall lobbyists looked on, allow operators of duty-free shops, newsstands, bookstores and McDonald's restaurants to continue serving millions of passengers at the world's fifth-largest airport for up to two years.

The contracts would not have expired until the end of May, after the May 17 runoff mayoral election between incumbent James K. Hahn and Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa. But airport officials hurriedly placed the extensions on the commission agenda at the end of last week.

Airport officials said they had not put the contracts out to bid because they recently embarked on a two-year process to overhaul LAX's underperforming concessions program. Travelers consistently give the shops and food choices poor marks.

Yet the concessions are so lucrative that the airport earned as much as $45 million a year from the arrangements. The contracts are essentially monopolies and are so highly prized that the major concessionaires hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions to city officials, including Hahn. The mayor appoints the seven-member Airport Commission.

John Ek, a prominent airport lobbyist whose clients include McDonald's, said after the vote that he had co-hosted a $1,000-per-person fundraiser for Hahn last Wednesday in San Pedro and that he helped raise money for the mayor last year.

Ek confirmed that he had appeared a year ago before a grand jury investigating pay-to-play allegations that campaign contributions may have influenced decisions on city contracts.

Julio Ramirez, another lobbyist and Hahn contributor, represents the Hudson Group, which operates bookstores and newsstands at LAX.

Ramirez is the husband of Annette Castro, one of Hahn's chief fundraisers. The Hahn campaign paid Castro more than $200,000 for her fundraising and campaign consulting activities in recent years, according to Hahn's campaign finance statements.

The New Jersey-based Hudson Group acquired the North American airport retail business of W.H. Smith in December 2003. Atlanta-area executives of W.H. Smith contributed $22,000 to Hahn's mayoral campaign in 2000. The company's LAX concession contract was extended without competitive bidding after Hahn was elected.

W.H. Smith also gave $50,000 to Hahn's L.A. United campaign to defeat the secession of the San Fernando Valley.

The Hudson Group contract was extended to May 31, 2006, with the option for another one-year extension.

The contract with DFS Group to operate the airport's Duty Free Shops was extended until Nov. 30, 2007. DFS executive Joseph Lyons and two lobbyists, Richard Lichtenstein and attorney Ellen Berkowitz, were at the commission meeting.

On the same 6-0 vote, the commission extended the concession contract of attorney Andy M. Camacho, who operates two Mexican restaurants at the airport. Camacho has contributed to both of Hahn's mayoral campaigns. He also gave $1,000 to the mayor's legal defense fund last month.

Contracts for coffee concessionaire Java Java and food and beverage concessionaires Eurotal and Creative Croissants were extended to May 31, 2007.

Travelers consistently give poor grades to the airport's concessions. Sales at restaurants and retail outlets also rank below the industry average.

In 2003, LAX shops and restaurants earned $6.17 per passenger, 27 cents less than the industry average of $6.44. Other major U.S. airports, including John F. Kennedy International in New York, San Francisco International and Miami International Airport, earned above the industry average. The figures do not include sales at duty-free shops.

Karen Tozer, the new concessions manager of the city's airport department, said a study would help guide decisions at LAX for the next 10 to 15 years. Tozer said some cities' airports have fabulous food and beverage outlets and stores. She said Los Angeles deserves the same.

The Airport Commission last month awarded a $622,000 contract to conduct the concession study. The consultant will evaluate the existing stores and restaurants and devise a new approach, including themes and a tenant mix to maximize space-constrained facilities.

The city's airport agency hasn't taken a broad look at its concessions program in more than a decade. The 133 sites at LAX are almost evenly divided between food and beverage locations and retail services. Many of the shops in the facility's nine terminals are outdated. Consumer tastes have changed, requiring a new look to generate higher sales, airport officials told the commission last month.

The study's completion date coincides with the expiration date of 70% of the contracts governing those shops. The city's airport agency hopes to put each concession contract out to bid, hire new operators and build new storefronts by May 2007. The seven concessionaires whose contracts were approved Monday have more than 850 employees at LAX.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 08:10 am:

FAA sends airport flight or fight response to Rialto

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

By Nikki Cobb
Staff Writer

4/5/05

RIALTO - The Federal Aviation Administration has drawn a line in the sand, warning the city in a letter that any attempt to close the Rialto Municipal Airport will be met with resistance.

The FAA's complaints range from safety issues contending that runway pavements are poorly maintained to fiscal problems such as undercharging for airport facility rental, resulting in the airport's lack of revenue.

The complaints come as Rialto considers three options for the airport's future. The airport could remain as it is; it could be scaled back; or all operations could be moved to San Bernardino International Airport.

"It's really premature to say what we'll do," said Richard Scanlan, director of airport/solid waste management for Rialto.

Rialto officials don't dispute the FAA's contention that the federal agency has given Rialto $14.9 million in grants for airport improvements and land acquisition, much of it arriving in the early 1990s.

"We're very aware that the city has received FAA funding," Scanlan said. "But the language provides for operations to be shifted to another airport."

According to FAA rules, Rialto is obligated to repay the agency for infrastructure improvements if the city closes the airport within 20 years of being awarded the grant.

However, $9.1 million of the $14.9 million was awarded to buy land. That obligates the city forever should the airport be closed or any of its property sold.

FAA Spokesman Donn Walker said that when Rialto officials talk about moving the airport, they really mean closing it. And that's not an option, as far as the FAA is concerned.

"It's not up to the city to decide when an airport may be closed," Walker said.

"To move it would entail closing the Rialto Airport," Walker said. "You may not close the airport without the FAA's approval."

The Rialto Municipal Airport is a "reliever" airport. It absorbs small general aviation traffic, easing congestion on bigger airports such as Ontario International.

But it once was primed to take much more of the overflow of Ontario's air traffic.

When Norton Air Force Base closed in 1994, however, San Bernardino opened the San Bernardino International Airport on the grounds of the old military facility. Its larger runway drew many of the corporate aircraft that Rialto had dreamed of attracting.

In the letter, FAA Airports Division Manager Mark A. McClardy says Rialto is "a critical reliever airport that plays an important role in serving aviation system needs in the Southern California region."

But the opening of San Bernardino's airport takes that burden off Rialto, Scanlan said.

"The role of reliever airport is far better met at San Bernardino than it ever could be here," he said. "Our runways are limited."

The letter warns that if Rialto leaders try to close the airport, the FAA will ask the courts to intervene.

Through the courts, the FAA will seek enforcement of Rialto's agreed-upon terms with the federal agency and the return of all grant money the FAA has invested in the airport.

"If you move something, by definition you have to close it," Walker said. "That may not occur without our approval."

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 08:37 am:

Noise, traffic two problems with Miramar - NCT letter 4/5/05

Robert F. Green and Bernie Schroer have both written recently in support of turning the MCAS Miramar into the San Diego International Airport. Have they considered any of the negative factors in relocating the airport to Miramar? The first two that come to my mind are the increase in traffic and noise.

The traffic on Interstate 15 and the surface streets will dramatically increase. Rush-hour traffic is almost unbearable at the present time. Do we want to increase the number of cars and trucks in the area? The noise level will increase and be sustained constantly instead of periodically with the number of domestic flights that would fly in and out.

Perhaps that is not of concern to them because they don't live in or have to drive through the area.

KENNEITH L. NOTTER
Escondido

By mvmike (68.5.84.158 - 68.5.84.158) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 09:40 am:

The fight over a new SD Airport at Miramar, if that becomes the official new airport site, will probably have many arguments pro and con that will sound familiar to those of us who fought the proposed airport at El Toro. From afar, Miramar looks to be a logical choice (there's nothing like distance to blur the real problems created by an airport or a new freeway), but I'm sure that the very large and growing population living near Miramar will see (firsthand) and loudly proclaim the other side of many issues, like traffic and noise. This will be an interesting issue to watch as the site decision is made and the real maneuvering begins. I don't envy either side. It is not an insignificant thing to place a major international airport in the midst of a growing and thriving suburban area.

By EDITOR (68.5.102.62 - 68.5.102.62) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 04:33 pm:

And if Seal Beach or Los Al is on the list, the NPB crowd will go nuts over the option of a second OC airport with over water takeoffs.

By mvmike (68.5.84.158 - 68.5.84.158) on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 10:45 pm:

I agree, EDITOR. This has never been about a factual need for more OC airport capacity. MCAS El Toro was simply a handy target of opportunity for NpB folks, to relieve themselves of the burden of JWA. Given a new target of opportunity, they'll suddenly find either Seal Beach or Los Al has great appeal as the next target in their hunt for an OC airport AWBH (anywhere but here.) Very much the same situation as at Miramar, except that in SD, there is a clearly-demonstrated need for more capacity, as SD is not "peppered" by unused and under-used ex airbases dying for lack of business, as is the case in the LA region.

By AFinDP (68.101.125.153 - 68.101.125.153) on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:04 am:

I agree with Editor and MVMike, and I might add that MCAS Tustin was never considered because it would have duplicated the take-off and landing pattern of JWA. If they were serious about airport capacity over NIMBYism, Tustin would have been pushed for as hard as El Toro.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 07:07 am:

• 1:30 p.m. — Great Park discussion: The Great Park Conservancy will host a community forum on the Great Park planned for the former El Toro Marine base. The forum, titled "3 French Parks on Reused Land," will be held at Laguna Woods City Hall, 24264 El Toro Road.

http://www.orangecountygreatpark.org/

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 07:17 am:

Beyond blimps: Mart, meals, motocross?

Proposals for south hangar include the noisy, the buoyant, the tasty and the futuristic.

Thursday, April 7, 2005

By JEFF ROWE
The Orange County Register

TUSTIN – A merchandise mart, airship manufacturing plant and giant food court now are among the proposals the city is considering for the south blimp hangar at the old Marine base.

•Innoventors Inc. of Santa Ana wants to construct a multistory merchandise mart inside the hangar. It would be similar to the Merchandise Mart in Chicago - a conglomeration of offices and displays where companies show new products to merchants and wholesalers.

•General Orbital Corp. of Houston, Texas, wants to use the hangar to build several airships, including a 300-foot long V-shaped titan that would carry passengers and cargo at an altitude of 100,000 feet – three times the normal cruising altitude of commercial jetliners. General Orbital is a start-up venture; the company also wants to build a high-altitude inflatable space station.

•Shaheen Sadeghi of Costa Mesa wants to install an international food and restaurant complex that would include a farmers market.

Potentially the best-funded of the new proposals is the plan for a merchandise mart, submitted by Innoventors. Partners in the venture are Bob Scholler, who has run several technology companies in Orange County, and James Douglas, son of aircraft pioneer Donald Douglas and himself a veteran executive at Douglas Aircraft, now part of Boeing Co.

The new proposals will compete with an indoor motocross proposal that, as previously reported, has been in the planning stages for three years. Dome Development Group of Santa Ana wants to build four major tracks inside the seven-acre hangar.

The proposals create a dilemma for the city.

As part of its agreement with the Navy, it must make good-faith efforts to find a workable use for the old building. But in land-short Orange County, the old wooden caverns consume space that could be used for housing or other purposes.

While many military veterans look upon the hangars as memorials of military service, others see them as crumbling, gray blights, relics of World War II that housed surveillance blimps that cruised the coast looking for Japanese subs.

City staff is evaluating the plans.

Tustin also has a voice in the north hangar, a 17-story clone of the south hangar.

The county controls the land on which the north hangar sits and last month declared that proposals for a military museum and a sports and entertainment center lacked sufficient economic horsepower.

The fate of the north hangar is expected to come before county supervisors in May.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 10:18 am:

Toxic odors, sour grapes - OCR letter 4/6/05

I don't know letter-writer Jim Hamilton, but given the options he lists for the old El Toro base, and that he lives in Newport Beach, I'm guessing he's with the pro-airport crowd ["El Toro goes nuclear," April 4]. This crowd just can't quite let it go. Hamilton, the original NIMBY, is upset that the new NIMBYs in south county voted down an airport there for the same reasons he opposes JWA near Newport Beach. So he's proposing instead to expose them to radiation with "one or two nuclear plants," and to toxic and noxious fumes from "a water treatment plant and an oil refinery."

Never mind all the safety issues about having those types of facilities running next to each other. This suggestion is not just the smell of toxic emissions in the air - there's some sour grapes, too.

Alfredo Gutierrez
Newport Beach

By EDITOR (68.5.102.62 - 68.5.102.62) on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 01:12 pm:

Great letter!

By Media Watcher (24.118.161.90 - 24.118.161.90) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 07:59 am:

[LB] Airport has $4B economic print

Long Beach Press Telegram

L.B. site, nearby businesses important to city, commission says.
By Felix Sanchez
Staff writer

4/8/05

LONG BEACH — The Long Beach Airport and surrounding businesses contribute nearly $4 billion to the local and regional economies, according to an early version of a study released Thursday.

The study shows an annual payroll of $1 billion, with direct earnings of more than $1 billion and a regional earnings impact of more than $2 billion.

"The Long Beach Airport is an important source of economic vitality for the city," the study stated. "Business opportunities need to be expanded within the constraint of the existing noise ordinances."

The preliminary findings by the Long Beach Economic Development Commission show the airport area complex "is clearly an important component of the overall vitality of the city's economy."

Joe Magaddino, Cal State Long Beach's economics program chairman, led the study, which began in July 2004 and used 2003 data, and submitted a version to the commission.

The complete study is expected to be released to the public at the end of the month and includes specific economic impact information for airport activities.

The data focus on the "Long Beach Area Complex," which includes the airport and an area bounded by the San Diego (405) Freeway, Carson Street, Clark Avenue and Cherry Avenue.

Within the area are 148 businesses, 16,000 direct employees and a payroll of more than $1 billion.

Most of the jobs about 10,900 in the immediate airport area are connected to the Boeing Co. and other manufacturing companies. The transportation industry boasts about 2,060 jobs.

When indirect or multiplying impacts are factored, the airport complex supports more than 48,000 regional jobs with total earnings more than $2 billion.

In late April, statistical information related to two additional, smaller areas Long Beach Airport Dependent Activities, and Long Beach Air Transportation and Related Activities will be included.

The findings indicated that 60 percent of airline tickets sold for Long Beach Airport were bought in Los Angeles County. Orange County accounted for 35 percent. About 5 percent were sold in other counties.

More than 24,000 overnight visitors used the airport in 2003 and spent about $8.8 million on hotels, and $8.1 million at restaurants, retail stores and on entertainment.

Flight crews who work for the airlines serving Long Beach spent $2.3 million for lodging, and $1.4 million for food in 2003.

The airport's enterprise fund, which raises money from parking and airline landing fees, car rentals and from fixed-based operations money used to pay for airport operations, capital and other costs raised $23.9 million in 2003.

The city received $2 million in property taxes in 2003 from the area, with $1.3 million generated from retail sales revenues.

Neighborhood groups representing residents under the flight path have argued that the financial benefits of the facility and surrounding area have not been measured and were possibly overestimated.

City Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, who has been a vocal critic of the airport's expansion plans, said she has not had a chance to review the report's numbers. But she remains skeptical.

Gabelich said that while a copy of the report's early version was delivered to her council office late Wednesday, she first saw it Thursday as she participated in an airport forum at the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce's annual business forecast conference.

"I am really offended that the chamber got a document that was paid for by the city before we got it," she said.

Staff writer Jason Gewirtz contributed to this report.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 07:27 am:

Long Beach airport ballot battle brewing

Long Beach Press Telegram

Officials hope to speed environmental report to head off expansion initiative.
By Jason Gewirtz
Staff writer

4/9/05

City officials mobilized this week to thwart a potential ballot initiative over Long Beach Airport terminal improvements by exploring ways to fast-track a key environmental study on the project.

But a group that supports larger improvement plans said such efforts may not prevent a battle at the polls.

"A quicker (study) would be fine," said Randy Gordon, president and CEO of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the group considering an initiative. "But that's not enough."

At least one council member wary of a terminal expansion considered those words a challenge.

"If that's not enough," said Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, "then bring it on."

On Thursday, Mayor Beverly O'Neill, three council members, the city attorney and city manager met at City Hall to discuss the city's potential strategies. City officials fear a ballot measure would be divisive, pitting neighborhoods against each other.

"Nothing was decided, per se, as much as we need to think about what we could do to head it off," said Councilman Patrick O'Donnell, who attended the meeting with Councilwoman Jackie Kell and Councilman Frank Colonna.

At issue is a proposal to expand the airport terminal to accommodate the airport's nearly 3 million annual visitors and workers.

Opponents of a large terminal, including many who live under the airport flight path, have cited concern that a bigger building could eventually invite additional flights. Supporters have said the existing conditions leave a lousy impression of the city and are not accommodating to travelers.

City staff members and a city airport consultant have recommended that the 58,320-square-foot terminal be expanded to 133,324 square feet, including new waiting areas, baggage claim and concession areas. After two weeks of bitter debate, the City Council on Feb. 8 approved an environmental review that would study a smaller increase to 102,980 square feet.

That review is expected to take about a year to complete. The time frame, and public complaints by JetBlue Airways the airport's largest tenant prompted terminal proponents to consider a ballot initiative that would bypass the environmental review process.

Last week, a group of community business and civic leaders calling itself the Long Beach Coalition announced that it has completed initial polling to gauge public opinion.

Depending on the wording, a ballot initiative could ask voters to settle the terminal size issue. The item could be placed on the November ballot if the state proceeds with a potential special election on a slate of referendums supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that month.

Long Beach City Manager Jerry Miller said Friday that the city may be able to complete an environmental review in six to nine months.

But Gordon said the group considering the initiative wants more alternatives to be considered as part of the review.

Several council members said that an initiative would be divisive.

"My biggest concern is it clearly would create a major problem with neighborhood versus neighborhood," Colonna said.

But Gordon disagreed. Opponents, he said, represent a minority.

"There's a lot of people who feel that the majority of residents in this city feel very strongly that the airport should be modernized and we deserve a more modern, up-to-date airport," he said.

O'Neill said the city wants to find a middle ground.

"It's hard to see who really wins in a case like this," she said.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 07:33 am:

Two Discount Airlines Launch S.D. Flights

Find this article at:
http://www.GamblingMagazine.com/managearticle.asp?c=70&a=14164

Apr 09, 2005

Two new discount-fare airlines, Independence Air and WestJet, will soon line up on Lindbergh Field’s runway to get their share of the airport’s fast-growing passenger market.

Dulles, Va.-based Independence Air is scheduled to make its initial push into California on April 14 with nonstop, once daily round-trip flights between Washington Dulles and Lindbergh Field.

“We’re absolutely delighted anytime we have a new carrier that brings new service to San Diego,” said Joe Craver, the chairman of the board of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority and president of San Diego-based Galaxie Management.

Separately, Calgary, Alberta-based WestJet plans to launch a temporary, seasonal route, starting with one daily nonstop flight between Lindbergh Field and Calgary International Airport on June 2, according to Airport Authority spokesman Steve Shultz.

Last week, Independence Air was advertising one-way fares between San Diego and Washington, D.C., ranging in price from $109 to $174.

Currently, only United Airlines serves Lindbergh Field with direct nonstop flights to Washington Dulles.

On May 1, the airline will follow up with nonstop service between Washington Dulles and San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose and Seattle.

WestJet’s round-trip fares for travel between San Diego and Calgary in June, listed last week on the airline’s Web site, ranged between $104 and $240.

When the Canadian route will be suspended is undetermined, but Shultz said it will be sometime in October.

Up And Away

Rick DeLisi, director of corporate communications for Independence Air, which separated from United Airlines during the Chicago carrier’s bankruptcy reorganization proceedings in 2002, said the discounter’s objective is to compete with United in its core markets.

United did not return phone calls. But according to the Airport Authority’s air traffic report for February — the most recent available — United had an 8.5 percent share of airline operations, or takeoffs and landings, at Lindbergh Field.

Yet the Downtown airport, which served some 16.4 million passengers in 2004, is seeing a bonanza of new nonstop, round-trip routes — including a once daily JetBlue flight between Washington Dulles and San Diego. The JetBlue flight will start on May 4.

According to industry analyst Raymond Neidl of New York-based Calyon Securities, the discounters are not only trying to steal market share from the full-fare airlines, but some discounters are going after others.

Todd Burke, a spokesman for Forest Hills, N.Y.-based JetBlue, declined to comment on the analyst’s remark. But JetBlue, which is traded on Nasdaq as JBLU, had a better year-end balance sheet, reporting net income of $47.5 million in 2004, while Independence, traded on Nasdaq as FLYI, reported a preliminary net loss of $192 million.

JetBlue made its maiden flight from New York to San Diego in June 2003 and subsequently added another nonstop daily flight to the route. A third, seasonal nonstop flight to and from New York operates during July and August.

Going More Places

While Lindbergh Field’s 2004 passenger count was an all-time annual record for the airport, significantly surpassing the years before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, San Diego’s airline travelers “now have more ways to get more places,” Shultz said.

Within the last six months, Alaska Airlines launched a once daily nonstop flight to Vancouver, British Columbia; Aloha Airlines started a new nonstop route to Maui and another to Reno, Nev.; and America West initiated a new route to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

Among nonstop round-trip routes that were recently expanded from San Diego, America West began a daily flight to Los Cabos, Mexico; America West has one to Vancouver; and Aloha launched a route to Honolulu this month.

In February, an air traffic report for Lindbergh Field showed that it served roughly 1.2 million passengers on both domestic and international flights, an increase of 2.1 percent from the same month in 2004.

Year to date, the total stood at 2.4 million passengers, an increase of 4.9 percent from the same period in 2004.

Throughout most of 2004, the monthly year-over-year passenger tallies were up about 7 percent. Craver said although airport officials expected the counts would level off this year, the numbers are still climbing.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 07:52 am:

RV Dealer Up for Grabs; ‘Resort’ Headed to El Toro?

Orange County Business Journal

By Sherri Cruz - 4/11/2005
Orange County Business Journal Staff

For Traveland U.S.A., a seller of motor homes in Irvine for the past 33 years, the only way to go is up. Upscale that is.

Traveland’s lease for its 36-acre Western-themed facility off the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway is set to expire in fall 2006. The dealership has outgrown its space, which also is outdated, according to general manager David Farwell.

In the works are plans to create a 250-acre “resort,” where people not only could buy and service recreational vehicles but camp in them, too. Plans call for a campground with barbecues, fire pits, outdoor entertainment spots, even hot tubs.

“It would be quite glamorous compared to what we have to work with now,” Farwell said. “An old shoe can only take so much polish.”

Traveland’s current Sand Canyon Avenue spread has a family restaurant and three ponds with fish and ducks. About a dozen dealers rent spots to sell RVs there.

Real estate brokers for Traveland have found three potential sites in Orange County for the new dealership. Farwell declined to say where they are.

Because of the big amount of sales tax Traveland generates, cities are courting the dealership. And Irvine doesn’t want to lose it.

Traveland has seen interest from other cities but wants to stay in Irvine, according to Farwell.

“We have a good relationship with the city of Irvine,” he said. “We definitely will remain in OC.”

The Pope family of San Diego owns Traveland. It’s their only RV business, Farewell said.

Traveland is mulling extending its lease one more year while it explores possible spots. Landlord The Irvine Company extended Traveland’s lease three years once already and declined to say whether it would do so again.

“It’s really premature to talk about what might happen,” Irvine Co. spokesman Bill Rams said.

Farwell, who used to be director of retail and services at the former El Toro Marine base, is eyeing property there that Miami-based Lennar Corp. recently bought for $1 billion.

Lennar acquired 3,700 acres at El Toro from the Navy earlier this year. It’s set to build 3,600 homes and develop some of the land for commercial and other uses.

Erik Hansen, senior vice president for Miami-based LNR Property Corp., which spun off from Lennar in 1997 and works with the homebuilder to redevelop former bases, said the only talks for El Toro now are with a cemetery developer.

About 75 acres have been set aside for a cemetery, Hansen said. Lennar and LNR have received letters of interest from several entities, including churches, retailers and schools, he said.

Irvine’s goal is to keep Traveland for itself.

“From an economic standpoint, the city is very interested in keeping Traveland,” said Wally Kreutzen, assistant city manager and chief executive of the Great Park Corp., which is developing the public portion of El Toro. “The city would help in whatever way it can.”

RV dealers are lucrative for California cities, which get about 1 cent of all sales tax dollars generated within their borders.

Traveland has about $300 million in sales a year. RVs sell from $6,000 up to $1.5 million. Traveland employs about 200 people in Irvine.

The dealership wants to stay in Irvine after spending the past three decades advertising its location, Farwell said.

The dealership’s customers know where to find the place, he said. Most buyers come from outside OC, according to Farwell.

RV makers are rolling out larger and plusher models, he said. The industry has done well since the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to Farwell.

But the RV resort business hasn’t kept up, Farwell said.

Traveland’s new spaces for RVs would be much larger, about 50 feet by 70 feet, according to Farwell.

Plans call for stores at the resort selling bikes and camping gear, Farwell said. RV dealers would own their space instead of renting like they do now, he said.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 07:54 am:

ONT targets fliers in East L.A., O.C.

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

By Joe Florkowski
Staff Writer

4/9/05

ONTARIO - The agency which owns Ontario International Airport has launched an ad campaign in parts of Los Angeles and Orange counties to draw more passengers to the local airport.

Los Angeles World Airports' marketing campaign for ONT began in March and will run through June, combining billboards, radio and Internet media.

The marketing campaign is aimed in particular at northern Orange County, the San Gabriel Valley and eastern Los Angeles County, areas where ONT is an attractive alternative to LAX, said Mark Thorpe, director of air-service marketing.

"All those areas are closer to Ontario," Thorpe said. "What we're trying to do is help people understand there are advantages to Ontario."

Los Angeles World Airports, which owns both ONT and Los Angeles International Airport, is in the second year of marketing the Inland airport. The marketing campaign is seeking to divert more traffic to ONT to spread traffic between the airports more evenly.

Currently, ONT serves nearly 7 million passengers while LAX serves about 10 times as many.

In the 2004 ad campaign, LAWA targeted the Inland Empire. This year, LAWA is posting many of its billboards in eastern Los Angeles and Orange counties.

LAWA has changed the focus because many Inland Empire residents were already aware of ONT, Thorpe said.

LAWA will spend $800,000 on the media campaign and will do it for at least two more years, Thorpe said. Through June, eight to 12 billboards will be used in the LAWA marketing effort and will change locations each month, he said.

Through this campaign, LAWA hopes to better track its effect, Thorpe said.

In last year's campaign, LAWA officials simply surveyed business travelers if they remembered the ad campaign, he said.

Now, with the Internet component, LAWA hopes to better track travelers who use ONT instead of LAX, Thorpe said.

For example, on certain Web sites, if users type in LAX or John Wayne Airport, they will get those results but a banner ad for ONT will also pop up, he said.

LAWA can then track how many people click on the banner and how many actually book a flight out of ONT, Thorpe said.

More people are becoming aware of ONT, but many travelers still think of LAX as a first choice, said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp.

Targeting eastern L.A. County and especially Orange County should help ONT because of the distance, Kyser said.

"It does make sense to market Ontario to Orange County because if you go over the 57 Freeway, it's not that far away," Kyser said.

Joe Florkowski can be reached by e-mail at joe.florkowski@dailybulletin.com or by phone at (909) 483-9391.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 07:51 am:

Old Bases Battle for New Life

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bases10apr10,1,5291428.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Communities say more federal money is needed to rehab the ex-military spaces they've inherited, which are often polluted and impractical to use.
By Ralph Vartabedian
Times Staff Writer

April 10, 2005

MONTEREY, Calif. — Along a seemingly a pristine stretch of Central California coastline, the Army is digging holes and sifting through a mountain of sand, looking for unexploded artillery shells, rocket propelled grenades and other ordnance buried at the former Ft. Ord infantry base.

The last soldiers marched out of Ft. Ord 10 years ago, but so far the Army has cleared just 5% of the base's firing range. The Army has unearthed more than 8,000 live shells, and the job could take another 20 years. Even then, Army officials can't guarantee they will get every last bit of ordnance.

The issues at Ft. Ord, which overlooks Monterey Bay, mirror a long list of environmental and economic disasters at closed bases across the nation, where critics say the Pentagon has badly mismanaged the cleanup and redevelopment process.

In coming weeks, the Defense Department will unveil its biggest effort yet to eliminate surplus military capacity, ordering the closure of as many as 24% of its facilities. Since 1998, there have been four rounds of military base closures.

"The economic devastation is great," said Harry Kelso, chairman of Base Closure Partners, an advisor to base communities. "It hits the local schools, the businesses that supported the base, and you lose the direct jobs at the base. Then on top of all that, you have a contaminated piece of property."

Radioactive contamination, lawsuits, leaking underground tanks, lost jobs, dilapidated buildings, broken promises, asbestos-laden soil and unexploded ordnance are just a sampling of the problems that have led to growing dissatisfaction and in some cases anger on both the military and civilian sides.

In almost every case, it has taken military services far longer than expected to clean up pollution at the facilities and turn the land over to local communities for redevelopment.

And once local agencies have received land deeds and Pentagon assurances that pollution was properly cleaned up, they have typically discovered environmental time bombs.

"We would like to see a lot more funding to get this cleanup moving faster," said David Brandt, an Alameda, Calif., assistant city attorney involved in redeveloping the former Alameda Naval Air Station, which was shuttered 10 years ago and still has massive contamination. "You have to spin your wheels while you wait for the federal government."

A significant number of environmental and economic trouble spots are in California, largely because of the state's huge share of military bases. San Francisco Bay, for example, touches four Superfund pollution sites at former military bases. Other former bases account for 14 Superfund sites across the state.

Defense officials say overall they have done a good job but acknowledge that some base closures have been problematic. There are "frustrations on both sides of the equation," said Phil Grone, the Pentagon's top official for the environment and facilities.

Base closures have saved the Defense Department $29 billion and continue to generate savings of $7 billion each year, according to the Government Accountability Office. The GAO found that the Pentagon had passed the halfway point of cleaning up most bases.

As it prepares for more closures, the Bush administration is adopting a new strategy to sell property more quickly. Essentially, it aims to privatize the cleanup and get the military agencies out of long-term environmental and economic relationships with local communities.

The Pentagon is hoping that outright sales of base property will help fund future cleanups, though that prospect is uncertain. One of its most valuable parcels, the former El Toro Marine base in Irvine, fetched far less than expected at an auction this year.

"I think we will be able to do a better job than we have in the past," Grone said in an interview. "We know a whole lot more now about the environmental condition of our bases."

Defense officials say they are not at fault for all the delays in getting bases redeveloped. Indeed, El Toro's redevelopment was delayed by disputes over a proposal to locate a major airport at the base. In other cases, land use restrictions have hampered redevelopment.

But critics say that the military has done a terrible job and that the new policies could make matters even worse.

"You couldn't design a program to harm communities more economically, even if you intended to do it," said Saul Bloom, executive director of Arc Ecology, an environmental group in San Francisco that has focused on military base issues. "There are no incentives for the Defense Department to do well. Nobody has ever been promoted to general for doing a good base cleanup."

Bloom and many local leaders say federal authorities are under-funding the cleanup. The Pentagon has spent about $8.3 billion on cleanup and expects to spend an additional $3.6 billion, figures that critics say are low-ball estimates of a job that could cost many times that when completed.

Even when bases are free of serious contamination or live ordnance, communities struggle to find alternative uses for bases. When the military pulls out, it usually leaves a small self-contained city that has no practical civilian use. Once-guarded main gates are open to anybody who wanders along, including vandals and arsonists.

Almost all closed military bases have hundreds of substandard, decrepit buildings. Sewer systems are minimally functional and not up to civilian standards. Electrical grids and roads must be torn out. Some buildings lack ventilation or heating. Even toilets are an issue.

"We discovered there weren't any potties," said Kathy Broderick, senior environmental coordinator in the conversion office at former McClellan Air Force Base outside Sacramento. "They just went out back in the woods."

That problem may be the least of the concerns at McClellan, one of the most polluted military facilities in the nation. After the base was closed, it was discovered that the Air Force had dug nine undocumented pits and dumped plutonium wastes, heavy metals and other toxins in them.

Pollution problems have delayed development of even seemingly valuable land at closed bases near major cities. After 10 years, the Bay Area's Alameda complex, for example, has a fraction of the development anticipated. Brandt, the city attorney, said the land may actually have a negative value because of contamination, including a large underground plume of trichloroethylene, a suspected carcinogen.

And as has occurred at many other bases, Alameda discovered new pollution after the Pentagon declared an area clean: After taking possession of an apartment complex, the city discovered it was contaminated with chlordane, a banned pesticide.

The Navy refused to pay for a $4-million cleanup, forcing the city to recover the money from an environmental insurance policy issued by AIG Inc. The insurance giant is now suing the Defense Department, which claims it is protected by "sovereign immunity."

A similar issue tied up redevelopment at the former Lowry Air Force Base in Denver. A developer building new homes in 2003 discovered the soil was contaminated with asbestos from a military hospital demolished 50 years earlier. Colorado environmental regulators demanded that the asbestos be removed at a cost of $10.5 million.

The city asked the Air Force for compensation, citing the federal law that makes the Defense Department liable for environmental cleanups at former bases. The Air Force balked, saying state officials had grossly overreacted to the asbestos. The dispute appears headed for a lawsuit, said Thomas Markham, head of the local reuse authority.

"There is nothing in the federal regulations that says they don't have to pay for a cleanup just because they don't like state standards," Markham said.

Experts say the discovery of new pollution is the norm rather than the exception at bases.

"Once you put a shovel in the ground, there are always going to be surprises," said Thomas Swoyer Jr., manager of impaired properties at Western Solutions Corp., a base closure contractor. "In one case, we were digging for asbestos in the soil and found a 500-pound bomb."

Meanwhile, rural communities often lack the resources to cope with complex development issues. When the Army closed a munitions depot in Seneca County, N.Y., the already economically depressed community lost 900 jobs, said Glenn R. Cooke, executive director of the local reuse authority.

And the county was left with 22 warehouses with caved-in roofs and another 500 steel-reinforced concrete igloos that will cost tens of millions of dollars to demolish. The county tried to get the U.S. Interior Department to take the land as a wildlife refuge, but the agency declined.

"We barely have two nickels to rub together in this county," Cooke said.

In affluent Monterey, such problems may not seem as relevant, but in fact the surrounding area is struggling economically with high unemployment, and the former Ft. Ord has many problems limiting its development.

The 45-square-mile base looks like it came out of a World War II time capsule with rows of clapboard-sided wooden barracks. The base has 6,000 structures, many contaminated with asbestos, PCBs and lead-based paint. At least 90% of the buildings will have to be demolished, according to Michael Houlemard Jr., executive director of the Ft. Ord Reuse Authority.

In the middle of the base, Army contractors have begun the painstaking job of clearing unexploded ordnance accumulated over five decades. The cleanup of small sections begins with removing brush with an armored lawn mower or by burning, though that can lead to other problems.

In October 2003, the Army began a controlled burn of about 500 acres but lost control and ignited 1,470 acres. It pelted multimillion-dollar homes in Monterey, Carmel and Pacific Grove with ash and soot.

After an area is burned over, workers walk the land and look for visible ordnance to remove. Then teams sweep the area with metal detectors. Every suspicious signal from the detectors must be investigated by digging a hole, often 4 feet deep, with a hand shovel.

When shells are found, they are detonated nearby, which reverberates all the way to downtown Monterey. Along with the shells, the Army has removed 3.2 million shards of rusty metal scrap.

"The fragments are driving us crazy," said Clinton Huckins, the Army Corps of Engineers safety and quality assurance chief at the cleanup. "It is very time consuming out there, very expensive."

What's more, there is no standard for cleaning up ordnance, unlike environmental standards for carcinogens or other toxins. The issue is being studied and debated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Defense Department.

In the meantime, nobody is sure how clean is clean enough. In one area, the Army has scraped 2 feet of soil into a giant sandy mound that it will begin sifting in coming weeks.

"We can't guarantee anything," Huckins said. "It is buyer beware."

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 07:54 am:

Airport petition drive would cause even more dissension

Long Beach Press Telegram

By Rae Gabelich
Guest columnist

4/10/05

As the rumblings of a citywide airport ballot initiative stir through our city and JetBlue executives publicly chastise the actions of the City Council, I feel it is important to address some of the recent airport development activities and the City Council's actions.

The council wants to see a modernized and improved airport terminal that the city can be proud of, that addresses the needs of airport security and accommodates the passengers utilizing Long Beach Airport.

What is not wanted is the "super-sizing" of the airport that will triple the existing terminal space and provide the capacity to handle more than the required number of flights determined by our city's noise ordinance. The needs of the airport must be balanced with the impacts on our neighborhoods.

The Long Beach Airport, as it stands today, is roughly 58,000 square feet and serves 41 commercial flights per day, the maximum currently allowed under the noise ordinance. The city's flight cap also allows for 25 commuter flights per day.

In the fall of 2003, city staff presented an airport modernization project that would increase the size of the terminal to approximately 98,000 square feet. JetBlue embraced the project, while many residents did not.

The City Council at that time asked the Airport Advisory Commission (AAC) to study the issue. In December 2004, the AAC presented to the City Council their recommendations for the airport expansion project. They offered three alternatives, with the largest being almost triple the size of the current terminal. The smallest recommended alternative was 102,000 square feet, still nearly double the size of the existing facilities.

The City Council listened to both the neighborhoods and the business community. After much public input and debate, we reached a compromise to conduct the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) study using Alternative 2 of the AAC recommendations as the project. This alternative nearly doubles the size of the terminal, and considers an additional four aircraft parking slots, which will allow for commuter aircraft and ease irregular operations caused by mechanical and weather delays in other parts of the country.

When an EIR is conducted, state law requires that smaller-sized alternatives, including a "no build" option, also be studied. The final decision on a project cannot be made until the findings are provided in the EIR and health studies have been completed. These reports should be completed by late 2005.

However, JetBlue now claims that this proposal, larger than the project they supported less than two years ago, is inadequate. Instead, JetBlue executives and supporters in the business community are considering circulating a petition to require the city to hold a special election to have a vote on the issue. By putting their expansion plan on the ballot, they would circumvent the entire environmental review process, so we would not have a full understanding of the pollution and health impacts of the airport plans.

What divisiveness will this cause within our community? More lawsuits, more taxpayer expense, more delays, less progress toward the ultimate goal of modernizing our airport terminal to serve the local traveling public.

Additionally, recent comments made in this paper by a JetBlue executive require clarification on the selection process of the concessionaire at the Long Beach Airport [Letters, March 31].

The process to receive bids to operate and improve the concessions at the airport began more than 10 months ago. Thirteen organizations have submitted their statements of interest and are awaiting the next step in the process for selection. The awarding of this contract is expected in June.

The objections raised were to a secondary selection process, eligible only to interested parties currently in place at the airport, that would provide a month-to-month contract until the permanent contract is awarded. The wording of this secondary process heavily favored JetBlue's current concession operator and gave the impression of favoritism and perhaps a leg up on the awarding of the permanent contract.

Instead, the current concessionaire has been asked to provide additional services within the hold room areas and has agreed to do so until the concessions contract open to all interested parties is awarded.

We have many challenges and opportunities facing our city. An expensive and divisive battle over 30,000 square feet of excess terminal space should not be one of them. A way to circumvent the environmental review process should not be one of them. Gaining a favored deal rather than competing on an even playing field should not be one of them. We all would like to see improvements made to Long Beach Airport as soon as possible. We have pressed city staff to immediately address some of the airport inadequacies, which they are working on.

What I personally will not support is a project that circumvents the environmental process. A project that triples the size of the airport to the detriment of our neighborhoods, and needlessly jeopardizes our city's valued noise ordinance.

Rae Gabelich represents the 8th District on the Long Beach City Council.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 08:00 am:

3rd-airport opponents voice their despair, anger

Sunday, April 10, 2005

By Stephanie Gehring
Staff writer Daily Southtown

Farmers, their families and other land owners gathered Saturday to tell Will County officials they want fair treatment in the battle for a third area airport.

Like many other farmers in eastern Will County, Kenneth Meyer said he is a "nervous wreck," and other family members are upset, too.

Their livelihoods and heritage are at stake, he said.

"The farm has been in the family for 150 years," Meyer said.

He asked permission to show a framed picture of the farm to the county board members. But he cautioned them.

"Be careful with it," he said. "because it may be all we have left."

The committee gathered to hear complaints of residents who live in the footprint of the project.

Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd), of Chicago, has promoted the project as an economic engine for the southeast suburbs and is spearheading an effort to make the project a reality.

Will County also has tried to take control of the project.

Jim Verdine, who lives in the footprint of the airport project, said his family has been on an emotional roller coaster ride.

"For years the project pushes forward and stalls. In the middle of all of this are families like mine," Verdine said.

He said his despair has turned to anger as he reads about policitial fights between Jackson and the Will County Board.

He and others asked for the same rights that residents of Bensenville and Elk Grove Village have received.

"We need you to petition the state to stop negotiations for our land until the FAA approves the project," Verdine said.

Similar provisions were given to the northwest suburban opponents of O'Hare Airport's expansion.

Residents also asked for a time line from Tim Martin, the Illinois Secretary of Transportation, and regular updates from Will County about the proceedings.

But Lee Deutsch, representing the Deutsch Family Farm, said residents want even more.

"It's been a long, hard battle," he said. "What we'd really like to see is the Will County Board take the approach that Bensenville and Elk Grove Village have put energy behind, we don't want any airport out here."

Ron Svara, chairman of the county's legislative committee, took notes during the public hearing.

Committee member John Anderson, who helped organize the hearing, recommended a Web site or newsletter from Will County that would offer updated information.

"One of the elements is a time table — we'll have to talk to Tim Martin," Svara said. "The key is protection from eminent domain. This will be on our agenda."

Stephanie Gehring may be reached at sgehring@dailysouthtown.com or (708) 633-5971.

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 08:37 am:

City needs Miramar, military does not - SDUT letter 4/10/05

Regarding "Airport agency urged to cool its jets" (Local, April 5):

Like many, I support our local military "industry," but there are other industries in our region that need a new airport for their future prosperity.

The white elephant in the airport room is Miramar. A look at a county map reveals Miramar as an ideal location – a huge land area, centrally located with freeways flanking it on three sides.

Chances are a base or two in California will be closed during the next round. Our political leaders should proactively consider all possibilities including promoting base consolidation and shared use of North Island or Camp Pendleton.

Move Miramar's operations to one of these locations and we all win. The military unloads a base, we keep the military staff and supporting industry in the county, and we get land for an airport. It's time our political leaders fired up their jets and did the right thing for all of San Diego County – not just the military.

TOM CUSTER
Hillcrest

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 08:39 am:

[LB] Airport food - LBPT letter 4/10/05

Re: "L.B. Airport" [Letters, March 31] by JetBlue Airways President Dave Barger.

We at El Dorado Services, Inc. are proud to be the concessionaire at Long Beach Airport and have been so for the past 11 years. We've been through the bleak economic times to the present success of Long Beach Airport and we appreciate that JetBlue has been a part of that success.

Mr. Barger's letter, however, has several inaccuracies. He states that the airport concessions are not up to industry standards. We have been awarded many Press-Telegram Readers' Choice awards throughout the years. Most recently (2004) we won awards for Best Service, Best Sunday Brunch and Best View. These types of awards are unique for an airport restaurant or concession.

Our family business is Long Beach-based and we have lifelong connections to this community. El Dorado Services has collected over 4,000 customer comment cards with a 99.5 percent favorable rating, with the exception of JetBlue staff complaints. We have one of the highest per-square-foot income ratios in the airport concession industry.

Mr. Barger states that the City Council advised airport management to withdraw a temporary concession agreement a patent untruth. I attended that meeting on March 8 when a JetBlue-inspired request to go out to bid for a temporary concession agreement was considered. The City Council judiciously requested that airport management report back with further information on the matter.

Mr. Barger has nothing but negative comments about our company and our community, but fails to mention JetBlue's hidden agenda trying to push forward the concessionaire that they control from Kennedy Airport onto Long Beach Airport. Let me take this opportunity to remind Mr. Barger that some of his success is due to the Long Beach Airport, not in spite of it.

We have monthly meetings with all the airlines at the airport to consider how best to work together as the concessionaire serving the needs of all our passengers. Invariably, JetBlue chooses not to attend these meetings.

Bill Rubenacker
President, El Dorado Services, Inc.
Long Beach

By Media Watcher (24.118.166.101 - 24.118.166.101) on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 08:48 am:

Passengers grounded by lack of signs at ONT - IVDB letter 4/10/05

I recently went to Ontario International Airport to pick up my mother from an evening flight from the East Coast. It's such a pleasure having a large airport so close without the hassle of going to LAX.

However, I found the pick-up procedure to be very frustrating. There are too few signs that properly show you where the correct terminal is.

The sign for the Southwest terminal, for example, appears only once as you enter, and judging by the skid marks on the highway, the quick left turn is often missed because there isn't another sign to tell you where to turn.

The only other sign that would give proper directions, has nothing written on it.

The worst part about trying to navigate the maze of roads and turn-offs, is the fact that what few signs they have, most were not even lit at night. Most of the lights pointing to the signs weren't even on, and this included the overhead signs that pointed to the highways airport exits.

Our local radio stations are flooded with new advertisements encouraging Southern California residences to start using ONT as an alternative to LAX. That should be good for ONT and the local businesses that border this airport.

I'd like to suggest to the ONT airport commission that before they advertise themselves as a major airport alternative, that they properly light and direct traffic through the airport. In essence, start acting like a major quality airport alternative or Southern Californians will all go back to LAX.

- MARK MONNINGER, Alta Loma