KCRW Transcript
Which Way L.A?.
July 17, 2001 6:30 -7:30 PM
This is the transcript of the on-the-air portion of the show. Go to KRCR.org for the entire audio track.
WARREN OLNEY: We are on the road again at the Barkley [sp] Theater on the campus of UC Irvine. We’re talking about an issue that has divided Orange County since the Marines pulled out of El Toro in 1993.
Onstage, we have two guests on each side of the issue. Let me briefly introduce them now.
For the airport: Chuck Smith, Orange County supervisor; and Barbara
Lichman with the Airport Working Group in Newport Beach.
Speaking against the airport at El Toro: Larry Agran, the mayor of Irvine; and Leonard Kranser, who is a retired businessman, now editor of the El Toro Airport website.
They’ll be answering questions from me and from our audience. Audience, let our audience in the radio know that you’re here. [applause and cheers]
The fate of El Toro will be of tremendous importance to the entire region.
It could impact Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario Airport, Long
Beach and John Wayne airports. It has ramifications not just for the tens
of millions of travelers and cargo carriers but for all of the people who
live near those transportation facilities, as well as the people, of course,
who live near El Toro.
At the root of the issue is projected growth. The questions are: Who
should reap the benefits? Who should suffer the consequences?
Once again, I’ll ask a few questions of our guests on the stage, alternating
between those for and against the El Toro Airport. Then we’ll go to the
audience.
We have, for our listening audience on the radio, microphones on both aisles here in the Barkley Auditorium, one for those who are in favor of El Toro Airport, and for – once again, for the audience, that’s over here on this side; and against the El Toro Airport, the microphone will be in the aisle over on this side.
And after we’ve spoken for a few minutes with our guests, we’ll alternate
then between microphones on the floor, hoping that our audience will ask
questions – again, alternately pro/con, pro/con. And we’ll do that until
we go off the air at 7:30.
Then, once again, for our listening audience, we’ll continue on the Internet from 7:30 until 8:00. And our Internet address is: kcrw.com
Let’s start with Chuck Smith, Orange County supervisor, elected in 1996, reelected last year. Formerly the chair of the Board of Supervisors in Orange County. Chuck Smith, welcome to you.
Why do you support the El Toro Airport? Give us two or three of the most important reasons you think that this airport ought to be built?
CHARLES SMITH: Well, Warren, the – economics is the main reason. Orange County is a very powerful economic body. If we were a country, we would be the 31st largest country in the world from – from a gross national product standpoint. Our economy would be roughly equivalent to Greece, Portugal or Hong Kong.
And can you imagine one of those countries or Hong Kong without an international
airport and still expected to grow?
The second is demand. Right now we have demand for about 12-million
annual passengers out of Orange County. About four million of those have
to drive to either LAX or Ontario. That demand is expected to more than
double in the next 20 years. And without an airport, that means that that
demand is going to have to be furnished by LAX. And right now LAX cannot
expand enough to handle the demand for the entire region.
The third is this has been operated as an airport for 50 years by the – by the U.S. Marines. And it’s a $10-billion gift to the County of Orange. The runways are already in place. All you have to do is to build – is to build the facilities that – that go with it.
And this airport would not cost the taxpayers one dime. It’s a gift from the federal government – [laughter from audience] – and – and all – just the infrastructure around it will be built by bonding it against future airport revenue.
WARREN OLNEY: All right, Chuck Smith, thank you.
Leonard Kranser, let me have you speak first on the other side. Once again, a retired businessman, a volunteer in the fight against the airport. Editor of the El Toro Airport website. Why not?
LEONARD KRANSER: Well, we have no shortage of airports in the Southern
California region. [laughter from audience]
Sounds like we’re doing a comedy show this evening, both of us getting
laugh.
WARREN OLNEY: Half the audience laughs at one joke; half the audience laughs at the other joke.
LEONARD KRANSER: It – it’s great. No, we really – we have seven airports
within 50 miles of El Toro. And several of them – not LAX but – and not
John Wayne – but several of them are looking for more business and are
under-utilized.
It just does not make sense to spend $3 billion to squeeze a second airport into Orange County. It will probably result in the closing of John Wayne Airport, which is a loss in air capacity in the region. And it’s not the proper location, hemmed in by mountains and by residential communities.
It’s not the place for a 21st century airport, which ought to go out in remote areas, such as Palmdale or the Southern California Logistics Airport – [laughter from audience]
This is – this is going to be a fun evening.
You know, Palmdale – some Orange County folks will say, well, Palmdale’s too far away from – for us. But to much of the audience listening in Los Angeles, they’re concerned about relieving the burden at LAX. And places like Palmdale and Southern California Logistics are well situated for taking the burden off LAX.
So, if – if anything, our problem in the region is one of ground-transportation access to the airports that already exist, not a shortage of airports.
WARREN OLNEY: All right, Leonard Kranser, thank you. [applause]
Barbara Lichman, once again attorney for the Airport Working Group,
based in Newport Beach. It represents the people around airports in other
places around the country as an attorney.
Barbara Lichman, your reasons, if you will, for building the airport at the former El Toro Marine Base.
BARBARA LICHMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Warren, for having us today. And I have to admit that I got several calls from supporters saying that I shouldn’t be, as a lawyer and a planner, hyper-legalistic in my presentation.
WARREN OLNEY: Good! [laughter]
BARBARA LICHMAN: So I’m going to refrain and just talk to you about my principle concern, and that’s my children and my children’s children.
I am very concerned about building an airport at El Toro because I believe it’s the way of the future for Orange County. And why do I believe that? Because airports – despite the laughter that’s sure to follow – airports bring jobs and income to a region, not just to the personal pockets of the people in that region but to the government entities through income taxes and sales taxes that keep our schools going, keep our hospitals going, and keep our children able to live in Orange County.
A park is a lovely idea. Unfortunately, it can never be implemented, at least not under the initiative proposed here, because of the very text of the initiative. And furthermore, it can never provide for the future of our children. And that’s my principle concern. [applause]
WARREN OLNEY: Okay, Barbara Lichman.
And the initiative has been identified. This is the first time we have
heard about it. Our next guest is one of the principle sponsors of it.
So perhaps Mayor Larry Agran of Irvine – had this job back in the 1980s,
was then involved in nonprofit organizations; came back to public service
in 1998; was elected to the Irvine City Council; and, in November of last
year, was elected mayor of Irvine.
Why a park instead of an airport, Larry Agran?
LARRY AGRAN: Thank you, Warren, for having us here. Thank you for coming down to Orange County.
A great park, a great metropolitan park that would be twice the size and every bit as beautiful as San Diego’s Balboa Park would serve the interests of the public in a far better way than a second, unneeded, unwanted, unaffordable and unsafe airport in Orange County. [laughter, applause, boos]
WARREN OLNEY: I think I should point out that we’re in Irvine, which is the – [audience laughter] – the city that Mayor – Mayor – that Larry Agran is mayor of. Go ahead.
LARRY AGRAN: This great park that we propose is the kind of public amenity
that generates income but generates a quality of life that will make us
proud that we lived here and that we worked in this endeavor and that will
be something wonderful for our children and grandchildren.
We will provide at that great park, in time, all kinds of amenities, including science and history museums, a veterans memorial and cemetery, picnic areas, a nature preserve, a great central library, performing arts facilities, soccer fields, baseball fields, a great lake in the center of it that would be 100 acres and provide water sports of all kinds.
Will it be built in a day or even a year or five years or ten years?
No, this will unfold, as other great parks have, over a period of 10, 20,
30 and even 40 years. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do this
right here, right now, to build a great metropolitan park in Orange County.
And let me just respond to the economic argument. You know, the economy is supposed to serve the people, not the people are supposed to serve the economy. And in the end – [audience applause]
In the end, we have a built a wonderful economy here in Orange County. And now is the time to capitalize on what is one of the most magnificent places in the world to live by having a great metropolitan park in this, the sixth largest county in the United States of America. [audience applause]
WARREN OLNEY: Let me start with – by – with a question for you, Mayor Agran, and let me ask you a question that pertains to the whole region.
Obviously, a park in southern Orange County would be a wonderful thing for the people in southern Orange County. What about the argument we heard earlier and that we hear elsewhere around the region that the airports are too crowded, that we need a new airport, that Orange County people, particularly in southern Orange County, use LAX, use other airports but aren’t thereby paying their fair share cause they don’t have an airport in their own vicinity.
LARRY AGRAN: Well, first of all, we do have an airport. It’s one of the larger airports in the country. It’s one of the most beautiful airports in the country. It is under-utilized, as things stand now. It is slated to grow. Even according to the most vigorous proponents of El Toro Airport, they acknowledge that John Wayne Airport – they’re prepared to sign off apparently on an agreement that it should grow by 27% over the next 20 years, even though the population of the county is only to grow by 14% over the next 20 years.
On top of that, when you look at the L.A. Airport system, it’s not just
LAX. The question has to be raised: What about Palmdale, which has been
built at great public expense and was built to be a 21st century
airport? And what about Ontario, where, in point of fact, they are prepared
to take an additional ten-million annual passengers? It’s un – underutilized.
And it is part of the L.A. Airport system.
We here in Irvine intend to have on the ground, within two years, a remote airport terminal that would allow people to park their car at the Irvine Transportation Center, get a ticket, get on a luxury bus, and drive out to Ontario Airport at no burden – at no burden to the people of Los Angeles whatsoever.
Let me say one other thing about the park. You described it as a south county park. If you look at the map of Orange County, the great park that we propose at El Toro – El Toro is right smack dab in the geographic center of the county.
And, in fact, my house is farther away from the great park than people’s
houses in Santa Ana, in Tustin, and in parts of eastern – east Anaheim
as well.
So, we’re talking about something that is central to the future of the county as well as central geographically.
WARREN OLNEY: Quickly, when you say there’s a big underutilized airport, you meant John Wayne?
LARRY AGRAN: No. John Wayne, in point of fact, has about 7.4-million annual passengers now. It’s capped at 8.4 million. And the latest proposal on the table was that over the next 20 years, it would grow to 9.8 million.
Incidentally, all that growth can take place without introducing a single
additional airplane into the system, because now the load factor there
is one of the lowest in the country, because of the marketing system and
because of the pricing system.
So, the challenge is to use the assets that we have in the Southern California region more effectively. And we can and we should do that. And we should address the ground-transportation problems. But building an additional international airport that would be landlocked in the center of roughly a million people is nuts.
WARREN OLNEY: Okay. Barbara Lichman, let me go back to you. Your group,
Airport Working Group, began as an effort by residents to prevent the expansion
of John Wayne Airport.
Will you respond to what Mayor Agran has just said about it.
BARBARA LICHMAN: Absolutely. And I have clarify. We had two goals when we founded the Airport Working Group. One was to control the expansion of John Wayne Airport but never to close it. Frankly, it is – it is a key in the functioning of Orange County, and a key in the functioning of the lives of most people in Newport Beach who travel a tremendous amount, Newport Beach being the most affected city.
Second goal was to find an additional airport for Orange County, not
an alternate, but an additional. Those goals were founded the first night
back 20 years ago. And we have accomplished virtually everything we set
out to do.
But second, with response to Mayor Agran, I’m afraid I am going to have to revert to some legalisms here.
WARREN OLNEY: We’ll be very quiet while you – while you do that.
BARBARA LICHMAN: Fine.
LEONARD KRANSER: Probably won’t get any laughs.
LEONARD KRANSER: No, probably not, on the contraire, Len.
Here’s the problem. Larry doesn’t run an airport. Larry runs a city. And to our knowledge, he runs it all right. But he doesn’t run an airport.
So when he makes pronouncements about how John Wayne Airport can run,
for instance, without a single additional aircraft, that comes from a position
of less-than-perfect knowledge about how airports run.
For instance, new regional jets that will take the routes between John
Wayne and San Francisco will multiply over the years. Anyone who knows
anything about the John Wayne Airport settlement agreement knows that there
is a class of aircraft called Class E that is not controlled by that agreement,
and that includes regional jets. They’re small. They serve the purpose.
And they will proliferate because they’re fairly quiet.
So shoving the problem onto a runway 5,700 feet long, not 10,000 feet
long, that has a departure procedure which most of us find armchair-clutching
that can never expand because the closest house is something like 300 feet
off the end of a runway, where, at a normal airport, that house would be
in the middle of the runway, is the height of foolishness.
And to say that we have enough demand – enough airport to meet demand, I wish to address the Ontario issue. Ontario is constrained not by demand, not by our desires, but by the California Air Resources Board and the Air Quality – South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Why is that? Because it’s located out east in a basin where air pollution
sits. And it is highly impacted. And the Air Quality Management District
has capped it at 12-million air passengers a year.
Admittedly, it’s at about seven now. That doesn’t help us.
And a remote terminal in Irvine is adding another two hours to get to Ontario at 8:00 in the morning – another two hours to a trip that would already be – [audience applauds] – delayed interminably by the airlines and the way airports’ capacity problems are – I’m sorry – I’m sorry – yes, oh, it’s a luxury bus. That’s right. I forgot.
So let me just say that we have a severe air-travel-demand problem in this region. The existing airports are all surrounded by people just like Larry and his constituents. They’re not thrilled with the idea of bearing more burden when others don’t bear any.
So it becomes an issue – [audience applauds] – it becomes an issue of: Can the airport take it? And why should somewhere bear Irvine’s burdens?
And lastly, to send a luxury bus out to Ontario on a regular basis will cause more air pollution than running jets out of Ontar – El Toro. [audience responds negatively] Sorry, folks. Sorry, folks. Sorry. I’m sorry that there’s a reality check for you, and you find it amusing. But that’s the way it goes.
And it’s verifiable if you revert to any normal air-quality model. You will find that surface traffic causes far more nox and CO – carbon monoxide pollution than do aircraft in normal modes. [audience applauds]
WARREN OLNEY: Okay. Let me – [applause continues] – obviously, we could
spend the entire evening on any one of the many issues that has been raised
here tonight.
So rather than getting an exchange on this particular one or any other
at this point, let me go next – back to Leonard Kranser – Kranser.
After we’ve heard from him and Supervisor Smith, then we’ll go to the
questions from the audience. And you see the mikes are set up. Once again,
the pro-airport is over here, and the anti-airport is over here.
So after Supervisor Smith has his – his next comment, we’ll take questions
from you in the audience.
Leonard Kranser, let me go back you. Barbara Lichman mentioned that
in – at John Wayne Airport, houses are very close. It’s argued that the
houses – there aren’t any houses under the current air path at El Toro,
that there have been, as Supervisor Smith indicated, Marine jets going
in and out of there for decades.
What’s wrong with that?
LEONARD KRANSER: Well, I think the folks here in Orange County know
the answer. But for the – for the people in your Los Angeles area, I’d
like to point out several things.
First of all, the Marine jets that went in and out of there for many years were high-performance fighters, to a large extent, that could take up over the mountains.
And the county’s plan for a commercial airport at El Toro involves having commercial airliners take off over those same mountains -- flight paths which the Airline Pilots Association, which represents 60,000 commercial pilots throughout the country, has said is unsafe.
Now, that’s – you know, that’s one part of the answer. The Marines also did not operate at night. They were respectful of the surrounding community – [audience responds negatively]
The Marines – I’ll have to remember the laugh lines.
The Marines largely did not operate at night – I’m sorry – whereas a
commercial airport, I think you would agree, will regularly have scheduled
flights at night.
The last Marine passenger plane to take off on the county’s proposed
departure to the north impacted into the mountains – [audience responds
negatively] – and killed – and killed over 80 people.
You know, it’s difficult. I think that our side generally benefits from getting facts out, and some of the folks make it – [audience responds negatively] --- make it tough for all of us. They make it tough for all of us, and I think that that’s not a very good idea.
Where was I? Okay. The – you were asking about the—
WARREN OLNEY: The question was what about the housing close to John Wayne Airport—
LEONARD KRANSER: Oh, yes!
WARREN OLNEY: --but no housing near El Toro.
LEONARD KRANSER: I would urge anybody who – who holds that view to visit, for example, the retirement community of Leisure World, where almost 20,000 senior citizens live right under the final approach into El Toro.
And had you been there during the so-called flight demonstrations in
June of ’99, you would have heard the deafening sound of planes landing
right over that community.
It is not a suitable location. As a matter of fact, it’s a ridiculous location in the context of the fact that we have other airports in the region that are not up against residential communities, that are not up against the mountains, and that are not trying to feed additional airplanes into what are already very crowded air spaces.
WARREN OLNEY: All right. Supervisor Smith, let me – [audience applauds] – excuse me.
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: Well, Warren, let me address the safety issue, first of all—
WARREN OLNEY: Do that, but also talk, if you will, about the park that Larry Agran described in such glowing terms at the outset.
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: Okay.
WARREN OLNEY: Go ahead. Two questions for you: safety, park.
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: The FAA determines whether it’s safe to fly out
of an airport or not. And only the FAA determines the safety factor.
The Airline Pilots Association had a representative here in this area
which claimed that – he felt it was unsafe. The Airline Pilots Association
has not taken any official stand on the safety at El Toro.
The FAA said it was okay to do the flight demonstration that was alluded to here a few minutes ago in which using the proposed patterns that – that the county is planning right now. Spent a whole weekend taking off every different type of – of commercial jet that were known – 747s, 757s, the A300s, 737s, and the FAA – and they were fully loaded with simulated loads – [audience responds negatively] – they were fully loaded with simulated loads. And the FAA gave it the stamp of approval and said it was perfectly safe, and there were no problems at all.
So the safety factor at El Toro has been demonstrated by the Marines
to be a safe operation. The airplane that was alluded to was a military
version of a Boeing 707, which took off to the north many years ago – 18
years ago, I think. That was the only fatal crash that – from the north
way. And that was determined to be strictly due to pilot error. That was
not due to the – that had anything to do with the airport.
So the safety factor is not an issue. The airport is safe. The FAA will determine the safe routes to fly. And they’re looking at it right now. But they don’t see any problem with the safety at El Toro.
WARREN OLNEY: Quickly, the park, if you will, that Larry Agran described as having nature programs, museums, water sports, and many other amenities.
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: Well, my question there is – who’s going to pay for that? Where are we going to get the money to build this great park? [applause]
I envision – I envision this great park right next to the city of Irvine, and the citizens of Irvine, it would be wonderful for you. But what about the rest of the county that has to pay for this great park? This will run into billions of dollars. And even Mr. Agran admitted it may take up to 40 years to build. And I personally don’t want to wait 40 years to transfer that base into a useful asset for the county. [applause]
WARREN OLNEY: Okay, thank you all.
Let us now turn to the audience. And I’ll go first to this side of the auditorium. This gentleman presumably is for the airport. Please identify yourself, then ask a question as briefly as you can.
PAUL MALUTAS [sp]: Good evening. And thank you for having us here. My
name is Paul Malutas. I’m the president of [unintelligible], All [unintelligible]
Neighborhood Association, 1,500 houses, 5,258 residents.
My question is to this panel. What about a hundred dollars tax fee to the users of Orange County to LAX Airport. What’s your opinion? Thank you.
WARREN OLNEY: Clarify your – excuse me, sir, before you go away. Clarify your question. A hundred dollar tax on who?
PAUL MALUTAS: To all the users of Irvine and Orange County to LAX in order for them to fly out of LAX to pay hundred dollars extra on the ticket.
WARREN OLNEY: Got it. Okay, a $100 tax to those Orange County people who use the airports in Los Angeles County. Mayor Agran, what do you think about that?
LARRY AGRAN: Well, I think it’s a bad idea. I guess if we charged –
if we charged a dollar a day for every car that drew – drove through Irvine
on the 405 or the 5, we’d be a city awash in money.
Look, we’ve got to work this regional problem out regionally. We could use some gubernatorial leadership. We could use some legislative leadership. Frankly, we could use some leadership from the Board of Supervisors. [audience cheers wildly]
And the reason, Warren, that this has become such a divisive issue is
we haven’t had that kind of leadership. So the people have struggled. They
did make a decision originally in November of 1994, on a 51% to 49% vote
on an initiative in the depths of a reception to build an international
airport at El Toro.
What seemed like a good idea has, in the six years since, unfolded as
a very bad idea. And now that people recognize that it’s a bad idea, they’re
trying to substitute for that airport a great metropolitan park. So we’re
working our way toward a ballot measure.
And the real question in this county – the real question is, once the people are heard, as they will be on March 5, 2002, on this great park initiative, will the popular will be honored in this county, or will it be subverted by the Board of Supervisors and by hypertechnical lawyers from Newport Beach and elsewhere? [audience applauds and cheers wildly]
WARREN OLNEY: Okay. [audience continues to applaud]
If I was a constitutional lawyer, I would say that was not responsive to the question that we heard – [laughter] – that we heard from the audience.
So let me give Supervisor Smith an opportunity to respond to what Larry Agran just said, and then we’ll get back to the audience asking more questions.
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: Okay, well, let me address the question that
Larry Agran didn’t really address, and that’s a $100 tax at LAX for all
Orange County users.
That’s been facetiously brought about several times in several suggestions
along those lines. I don’t think that’s a workable thing to do. I don’t
think they could – could check your idea and charge you $100 if you’re
– if you were from Orange County. I think there’s some kind of discrimination
there. I don’t think that that would work, and I don’t think it’s a very
good idea.
As far as – as -- Orange County has got to recognize that we have a
demand here. We have a regional demand, and this is a regional problem
with airports. And we need to put together a plan whereby March and Norton
can take care of the Inland Empire’s needs as far as air passengers and
air cargo.
Orange County has to take care of its own need, its own passenger and
air cargo need.
We – right now we have about a half-a-million tons of air cargo that’s generated in Orange County; 96% of that has to be trucked to LAX or Ontario. That’s expected to triple in the next 20 years.
But can you imagine how many trucks that’s going to put onto the freeways
to haul this air cargo up to LAX and to Ontario? And if it was taxed at
LAX because it’s from Orange County, think what that would do to the economy
of Orange County.
We need this airport. It is needed, very badly needed from an economic standpoint. [applause]
WARREN OLNEY: Okay. Over on the anti-airport side, do we have a question, sir? Who are you? And give your question, if you will.
MIKE KILROY [sp]: Mike Kilroy, and I’m from Aliso Viejo. I have a question for Supervisor Smith and Miss Lichman. Would we be here tonight debating this issue if Newport Beach businessman George Adjiros [sp] hadn’t spent $3 million of his own money – or I should say his tenants’ money – [laughter and applause] – on getting rid – on getting rid of air flights over Newport Beach and his influence on Orange County government?
WARREN OLNEY: Okay, obviously a question with some background required. Barbara Lichman, we’ll give it to you.
BARBARA LICHMAN: Well, I’m going to take the model of Larry, who isn’t a hypertechnical lawyer but a great politician deflecting the question. The issue—
WARREN OLNEY: You don’t want to answer that question?
BARBARA LICHMAN: Oh, yeah. I mean, I can’t answer for George and his $3 million. I am not directly in line to receive it. But I can tell you that he has not moved any aircraft over – from over Newport Beach. Newport Beach still has and has a growing number – 120 flights a day now. Started with two back in 1969. So George has not accomplished that.
But let me say – there’s some things money can’t buy, I guess – let
me say that I found it interesting what Larry had to say earlier about
the great park – rather the airport starting out as a good idea back in
1994, but now you realize it’s a bad one.
I can tell you now, we’re not going to take six years to figure out
that the great park is a bad idea. All you have to do is read the initiative
and find out that the great park isn’t a park at all.
The great park – look at – look at the initiative, Section 4, you’ll realize that the open-space designation includes anything that Irvine wants to put in it. [smattering of audience response, pro and con]
So there will be no park. Whether or not the people of Orange County vote for it, there will be no park in that space, not under this initiative.
WARREN OLNEY: What are you saying? What are you saying? What would Irvine – the City of Irvine want to have there instead of a park?
BARBARA LICHMAN: Well, I can tell you if you’d like to me to read you a quote from the initiative itself. Open-space designation, according to their initiative, includes any use, any development purpose that anyone in the future deems appropriate.
Now, if you – I can read it to you. I’d be happy to. In fact, if you go to another questioner, in a minute I’ll find it for you so I won’t waste your time.
I can only say that under this initiative, if you vote for it, you will
be voting for whatever the contiguous community – that happens to be Irvine
– within which that part of the base – the sphere of influence within which
that part of the base lies can implement its own local plans on that 4,000
acres.
Now, the rest of Orange County has to understand that they’re not going to be getting soccer fields and baseball fields and all those lovely little things that Larry enumerated. They’re going to be getting in the next 40 years a windfall for Irvine, period.
WARREN OLNEY: Okay. We’re going to go to a break. We’re going to take a very brief break for station identification. We’ll come back, give Mayor Agran a chance to respond to that. And then we’ll go back and take more questions from the floor on this special edition of Which Way L.A.
Off we go to the break.
[break]
WARREN OLNEY: This is Warren Olney, back again at the Barkley Theater
at the University of California at Irvine, talking about the El Toro Airport,
should it or should it not come into existence on the former El Toro Marine
Base. We’ve been hearing about a lot of different issues involved here,
most recently about the great park.
Barbara Lichman, who is with the Airport Working Group in Newport Beach, says that the language of the initiative that has been proposed on the March ballot next year calling for a great park instead of an airport. In fact, it would allow anybody to do anything they want, particularly the City of Irvine.
Mayor Larry Agran, again the mayor of Irvine, the city in which we find ourselves, your response.
LARRY AGRAN: Thank you, Warren. Well, we are struggling ultimately to annex the former Marine Corps base into the city of Irvine.
As for the great park that we envision, we would anticipate that it will be governed by a broad board of directors, not necessarily the City of Irvine. We want to include representation from every community in the county.
And why wouldn’t the people of the county prefer a great metropolitan park to a polluting and unneeded airport?
Now, the question is: Do we have some devious plan to develop it? And is this initiative, in fact, some kind of a Trojan horse in that regard? It is not.
Barbara will search – let me just say something else, if I could, Warren,
here—
WARREN OLNEY: Quickly if you will, because I want to get back to the questions from the floor.
LARRY AGRAN: Well, I will because I think this – this bears upon the rest of the evening.
We have learned over time that good information triumphs over bad information. We’ve learned also – and this I say to our supporters as well as our adversaries – that good manners triumph over bad manners.
So I hope everybody will be respectful of one another here tonight. [applause]
Let me also point out that when this base is conveyed, whether it’s
to the county or to the City of Irvine, it is conveyed not just as land
mass but with assets on it. We have abandoned housing, three-million square-feet
of abandoned industrial and warehouse space, over 2,000 acres of unused
Class A soil for agricultural purposes.
The economic analysis that we commissioned demonstrates that these resources will generate over $25-million annually in net revenue that will be put into an endowment that will allow us to, over time, build a quarter or half-billion dollar endowment that will allow us then to design, plan, build, and operate the greatest part in the United States of America – all without any taxpayer dollars.
WARREN OLNEY: Are all those things part of the initiative? Are they included in the language of the initiative? Miss Lichman claims that they’re not – for example, this board of governors from all over the county—
LARRY AGRAN: No, the initiative is about land-use designation, the 1994 decision by the voters of the county was to commit over half of the land at El Toro for an international airport. This question that will be before the voters is whether we should repeal those land-use designations and replace them with broad land-use designations that would accommodate the great park that we envision.
WARREN OLNEY: All right. Excuse me, Miss Lichman, I know you want to comment on the language, but if you don’t mind, I think we want to get back to the audience—
BARBARA LICHMAN: Sure.
WARREN OLNEY: --let them ask questions. Please, let’s try to give as
brief an answer as possible, so we can get as many questions as possible.
Go ahead over here on the pro-airport side.
SHIRLEY CONGER [sp]: My name is Shirley Conger, and I live in Corona del Mar. I have a question for Supervisor Smith. Have we considered the El Toro Airport as a cushion of safety for Orange County residents? In the eventuality of a major disaster in Orange County, such as an earthquake, and considering that John Wayne Airport is a liquefaction zone, how many planes could take off and land every day at El Toro Airport in order to provide disaster relief?
WARREN OLNEY: Thank you. Supervisor Smith?
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: Well, obviously it would be of no help for disaster
relief if it was a great park. It would be out of the question. The Marines
have been using that base for 50 years. They used it as a staging area
for – during the Gulf War. And if many were living close to the base at
that time, you can remember planes taking off and landing continuously,
all hours of the day and night, for a tremendous amount of time.
El Toro has got two 10,000-foot north-south runways and two 8,000-foot
east-west runways that could be used in any kind of emergency basis.
And John Wayne Airport has only one 5,700-foot runway.
So that tells you the story right there. El Toro could be used for disaster
relief, and it could be used very, very heavily.
The President of the United States has landed there several times. The
Vice President Al Gore landed Air Force Two there not too long ago.
So it’s safe. They would not let the President of the United States land at airport that was – was not safe, believe me.
WARREN OLNEY: Okay, Mr. Kranser, you want to respond very quickly to that point on the disaster relief—
LEONARD KRANSER: Very quickly, when the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States, they did not take off in the direction toward the mountains that the county is proposing. [applause] As far as--
WARREN OLNEY: What does that have to do with disaster relief?
LEONARD KRANSER: I’m sorry?
WARREN OLNEY: How does that relate to disaster—
LEONARD KRANSER: As far – as far as Miss Conger’s comment about disaster relief, if there’s a disaster, we have not only the seven airports that are within 50 miles of El Toro, we also – we also have the landing strip at Camp Pendelton. And we have other airports that are further out. We have an airport at Carlsbad. We will have plenty of capacity outside of the immediate-impact area, which is where you want it in case there’s a natural disaster.
WARREN OLNEY: All right. Let’s go over here to the anti-side, the person holding Question Card #2. Go ahead. Who are you, and what’s your question?
JOE RAINEY [sp]: My name is Joe Rainey. I’m a citizen of Laguna Woods. Mr. Smith, I worked for a major airlines at LAX for over 25 years. In my experience, there’s always the 1% that puts safety second in front of public safety.
I heard you say that you – your first reason for an airport is economics. To me, that’s very frightening. I worked operations. I know when you have a problem on takeoff, you don’t need a mountain in front of the aircraft. I think it’s very, very dangerous. The pilots think it’s very dangerous. Why are you putting economics in front of public safety? Thank you. [applause]
WARREN OLNEY: Once again, for our listening audience – pardon me – this is Supervisor Chuck Smith, who is in favor of the airport. Go ahead.
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: We’re certainly not putting economics in front of safety. The FAA will decide what’s safe and what’s not safe at any airport. And that’s the way it always has been, and that’s the way it will always will be.
And the fact that there are mountains that are 15 or 20 miles away,
if the FAA says that’s okay, then – then the FAA will make that determination.
So it’s not a matter of putting economics above safety. Safety is predominant, but that is going to be determined by the FAA.
WARREN OLNEY: Mayor Agran, briefly, I don’t think we’ve heard you on safety. If you want to respond to that, go ahead.
LARRY AGRAN: Yes. The – the [sounds like] Loma Ridge is less than five miles from the end of Runway 34. The last time a jet transport took off from that runway, 84 people died on June 25, 1965.
WARREN OLNEY: But wasn’t that pilot error, according to Mr. Smith earlier?
LARRY AGRAN: In point of fact, there was no mechanical failure. There may have been pilot error. There may have been error at the controller tower. Does it really matter? People make mistakes. People make mistakes. And as public policy-makers, it’s our responsibility to try to provide a margin of safety. And taking off with a tail wind uphill into rising terrain is a prescription for disaster.
WARREN OLNEY: Okay.
BARBARA LICHMAN: Warren, if I – if I may add something to that.
WARREN OLNEY: Very quickly, if you will, Barbara Lichman. We want to get back to the floor.
BARBARA LICHMAN: Very quickly. The climb rate for a fully loaded 747 taking off on that runway is 350 feet per nautical mile. Assuming a nautical mile is slightly larger than a regular statute mile, you’ve got 350 feet times about 4 ½. Loma Ridge is 800 feet. If that aircraft is at 800 feet at that point, it had problems long before Loma Ridge ever surfaced. [audience cheers and applauds]
So let’s put that stuff away.
WARREN OLNEY: Point clear, there’s disagreement on the safety issue.
Let’s go over here, Number 3 on the pro side. Go ahead.
JACK CAMP [sp]: Yes, my name is Jack Kamp. I’m an urban designer. I live in Laguna Beach, for the last 25 years. And you’ve touched on these questions – this is basically for Mayor Agran – and it has to do with
the great park.
Can you clarify the great park initiative and its contents? There’s four parts here. What guarantees are there that the park will be built? What guarantees? What will it cost? And how much will be spent of the taxpayers’ dollars?
LARRY AGRAN: I’d be happy to respond to that.
There will be under the plan that we envision no cost to the taxpayers
because we will make use of the assets that exist on the base – the housing,
the industrial and warehouse space, as well as the agricultural lands that
would be leased at $2,500 an acre. And the agricultural lands alone would
generate net revenue of $5 million per year.
Altogether, there’s a net revenue of over $25 million per year that would be put into an endowment that would quickly build to a quarter, and then a half-billion dollars, and would generate the annual revenue, much as the Conservancy for Central Park in New York does, to allow us to build and to operate at no taxpayer cost the great park that we envision.
As far as the contents of this initiative, it is very important for people to understand this initiative, quite simply, repeals the land-use designations that today direct the county and others to go ahead with an international airport at El Toro. It repeals those provisions, and replaces the – those provisions with land-use designations that would accommodate a great park.
And to be responsive to Barbara Lichman’s point, yes, you can do quasi-public institutions as well – colleges and universities and so forth.
Would we have an interest in turning the great park into a great mall?
Who would want that?
So the point is, this is an initiative that opens the way with re-designated land use provisions to build the great park that we envision. We’ll do it; successive generations will do it.
WARREN OLNEY: The question asked about guarantees, though. Are there are guarantees in the initiative? Is it written that way? Barbara Lichman, maybe you want to address that—
LARRY AGRAN: No, let me address that. You guarantee me that an airport won’t cost the people of this county billions of dollars. [applause] You guarantee me that right now. [applause]
WARREN OLNEY: Miss Lichman, go ahead.
BARBARA LICHMAN: I’m glad you asked, Larry. We can guarantee it. But
– [audience groans, responds negatively] – but to respond – yes, yes, we
can. But to respond to Larry’s non sequitur, I want to read you that section
of the initiative, which only is about two lines, which will show you what
I’m talking about, and it’s pretty scary.
One: Areas identified open space are not necessarily committed to permanent open-space uses. Certain property within the open-space category is committed through public or private ownership to remain as open space; but other property, due to market pressures to serve a growing county population, may ultimately be developed in other ways. [audience responds negatively]
Now, hear this. Who would want to put a huge mall? Look at Irvine. Irvine is the – Irvine is the national model for strip models.
Now, let’s face it, folks. Put Costa Mesa there. Who would want to build
a huge mall? Put Costa Mesa there. Put Newport Beach there. Okay. That
having been said, you see, there are no guarantees that the great park
will ever be a park. And that’s the issue.
And why, even if we assume that it would be a park, despite the expressed
language of the initiative, Larry left a few little details about cost
out. And those – and those details are that you have to buy it from the
federal government, unlike Larry’s representation that there will be a
public benefit conveyance, or a PBC, as they say under the Base Reuse and
Realignment Act.
The fact is that in order to public – to convey for public benefit, the use has to be demonstrated to be the most economically viable of all the alternative uses.
Clearly, whatever the benefits of a park might be – and we dispute those
– it is not the most economically viable use. It will not be subject to
a public benefit conveyance.
Furthermore, Larry left out another small detail. That’s called cleanup. Under El Toro runs a plume of very nasty pollution, which, because it is going to be conveyed for airport purposes, need not be cleaned up to full residential level. Okay? [audience responds negatively]
But – but if it were to become a park, it would have to be cleaned up to full residential level. [audience cheers and applauds]
Now, here – here’s the problem. Here’s the problem. No one will pay
for it. No one will pay for it. [audience responds negatively]
Cleanup – oh, I’m sorry I’m impinging on your nice, little world, but here’s the deal. No one will pay for it because it could run – it could run as high as – hold onto your hats – a billion dollars.
Now, Orange County doesn’t have the money—
WARREN OLNEY: Okay, I think you’ve made enough – I think you’ve made enough points—
BARBARA LICHMAN: And the Feds won’t—
WARREN OLNEY: I want to get back to the audience, but I do think that the mayor of the strip mall capital of the world - - [laughter] – deserves a – deserves a response. Go ahead, Larry Agran.
LARRY AGRAN: Well, of course, we – Warren, we invite people from the entire region to come visit Irvine, which we regard as the most successful planned community in the country. We’re proud of it.
WARREN OLNEY: The question though is the guarantees. What about the guarantees in the proposition?
LARRY AGRAN: I’m sorry, what is that about cleanup?
WARREN OLNEY: Well, the cleanup but the guarantees it wouldn’t cost
hidden amounts.
LARRY AGRAN: Let me – let me just suggest something here. The federal government took the land in 1942. Over a period of more than 50 years, they poisoned the land. About 15% of the base is contaminated with toxics.
We believe in a little law and order here, which is to hold the federal government to its responsibility to clean up that land and restore it in its entirety. [audience applauds]
Now, the concern – the concern that we have is that the airport proponents – including the county, I might add – are interested in doing this on the cheap, paving it over, covering up the toxics, taking a bad deal from the federal government, and saying, well, what do we care about those toxics?
I say it’s time to hold the federal government responsibility on this – responsible under the Super Fund legislation. [audience applauds]
And nobody – nobody should take that land from the federal government without the commitment and the resources to clean it up and restore it to its original state. [audience applauds]
BARBARA LICHMAN: Warren?
WARREN OLNEY: Wait. Miss Lichman—
BARBARA LICHMAN: Yes, it is.
WARREN OLNEY: --I want to go back – I want to go to the audience again, but let’s go to Chuck Smith of the Board of Supervisors. Do you intend to, in fact, pave over all this pollution as – if, in fact, an airport is built there?
And another question I wanted to ask you, Supervisor, was this. You said earlier this was a gift from the federal government, and Miss Lichman said it will cost money, that the county will have to buy it to make a [unintelligible]
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: Well, in order for it to be used for any other
use than the proposed use, which is an airport, the federal government
has to clean it up per the – all the [unintelligible] and the EPA requirements
to – for use as residential areas.
The Navy is not going to clean it up for any other use than what they agree that it’s going to be used for, and that’s an airport.
The Navy will not clean it up for residential use. That’s one of the
problems that they’ve had with the Tustin transfer, is because they wanted
to use a lot of it for commercial use, and – and the – there’s not enough
money in the Super Fund to – to clean it up to those standards.
So the base will never be used for residential, commercial area if – if you’re depending on the federal government to clean it up, cause they are just not going to do it.
Now, Mr. Agran said that the money for building this great park was
going to come from using the existing buildings on the base and setting
up an endowment fund, which would raise about $25 million.
Well, let me tell you, we’ve done a very extensive cost analysis on
that base, and all the buildings on the base, if they were utilized now,
would not cover the maintenance as it exists right now, much less cover
the cost of building this multibillion-dollar great park and much less,
even more, of covering any kind of maintenance of the park.
The money’s just not there.
WARREN OLNEY: Okay. Let’s go back to the audience. And over here, the Number 4 person on the anti-airport side. Go ahead, identify yourself and ask your question.
JOHN BERRY [sp]: Thank you. My name’s John Berry, and my question is for Supervisor Smith. In your opening remark, you stated that L.A.’s runways are in place, alluding to the fact that it’s fairly turnkey.
My first question is, in your own environmental impact report, you state that all the runways will need to be torn up, lengthened, strengthened, leveled and separated. And I’d like to know how that is turnkey.
And second question is, the original estimate I think was $1.8 billion for this airport. It’s now 3.2. Based off the historical cost overruns at John Wayne, Denver and other airports, how many more surprises are going to be in for this until we – if you decide to build it?
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: Well, the original estimate, you’re right, has – has gone up to about $3 billion to – to utilize all the necessary infrastructure to open the base for its eventual build-out, which would be over a 20-year period.
But let me remind me that that is not taxpayers’ money. That money will come from airport-user fees. John Wayne Airport is completely self-sufficient. And all the money that’s made at John Wayne Airport goes back into John Wayne Airport. They do not use tax money. And the county not – cannot – and the county cannot spend that money for any other use but airport use. [audience members shout out comments, questions]
As far as the runways are concerned, the runways could be used tomorrow. The runways are in place. They’ve been in place. And eventually, over a period of 20 years, yeah, there’ll be some improvements made. The runways will be lengthened. New runways will probably be built with – with more separation between them over a period of 20 years. But those runways are in place now.
And when I talk about a $10 billion gift from the federal government, that land will be transferred to the county for airport use, and it will be transferred free of charge.
WARREN OLNEY: And back to the questions of the runways, the gentleman mentioned the EIR, the environmental impact report. Are there references in the EIR to those repairs on the runway? And would they be down the road, as you’ve just said, rather than right away?
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: They will be over a period of time, yeah. The airport is going to be built in actually four phases over a 25-year period.
WARREN OLNEY: Mr. Kranser, you want to make a quick response, or should we go back to the audience?
LEONARD KRANSER: Well, it seems as though it’s acceptable to build an airport over phases, but somebody here was frustrated about the idea of building a park over phases. I think it makes – [audience applauds] – I think it makes good sense in either case.
You know, money – money is not unlimited, whatever its source. And if you take $3 billion of transportation infrastructure money, and you spend it on an airport that’s in the wrong place, and that starts off hemmed in by mountains and residential communities, then you’re taking that money away from projects which make more sense in the long run, like ground-transportation access to the remote airports or developing places like Palmdale to handle the overflow from LAX.
WARREN OLNEY: Okay, let’s go back over here. Number 5 on the pro side. Go ahead, sir.
RUSSELL NEROWSKI [sp]: Good evening. My name is Russell Nerowski from Santa Ana Heights, in Orange County. I’m the president of the New Millennium Group, which is a nonprofit, political-action committee. And the purpose for this committee is to address Larry Agran. [laughter]
The issue here tonight – the issue here tonight is about house-cleaning.
And since Larry Agran is the king of south county house-cleaning, this
is the question I have for you.
The issue here tonight is about airport demand in the Southern California region. That includes Orange County, and that includes the city of Irvine.
The world is watching the city of Irvine, and it’s watching it tonight. We all know that Irvine is a master-plan community designed by the Irvine Company.
We also know that the future of air demand hinges on what’s going to
happen at El Toro.
Everyone’s talking about safety issue, and King Larry Agran of south county is trying to sweep the air-travel demand onto other airports, other counties.
My question to you, Larry Agran, is, how do you feel justified in disobeying
the state-mandated Airport Land Use Commission by moving forward with building
2,500 homes within the established policy-implementation line, which is
the military-established no-home zone for planning Area 17, which is currently
a strawberry field, which was originally zoned to be the cemetery that
Irvine now is looking to build today on El Toro.
My question is, you’re doing this to block the safer alternative airport designed by my partner, Charles Griffin [sp], which is called the V-Plan. [audience responds negatively]
So my question to you is, why would you be stopping a safer airport, which is the thrust of why you’re saying this is the wrong airport when we’re introducing the right airport plan for the 21st century? You instead would rather build homes and disobey the state-mandated Airport Land Use Commission.
WARREN OLNEY: Okay, a lot of issues here.
RUSSELL NEROWSKI: --answer that.
WARREN OLNEY: Thank you, sir.
To Larry Agran, who is the mayor – again, the mayor of the City of Irvine,
the Planning Commission, as I understand it, has unanimously approved the
building of 2,500 homes that would be in the pathway of the – of the El
Toro Airport if such an airport would built – were built.
And the city has been informed, as I understand, by the state body that if it does sell and there’s any problem as a result of the airport the city will be liable. Is that right?
LARRY AGRAN: You’ve got it basically right, Warren, except I want to
make something very clear. We are in the process of building out the city
of Irvine in according with the general planning principles that have been
laid out for decades.
This housing development, Planning Area 17, is being approved in accordance
with the general plan of the city of Irvine that predates by decades the
1994 airport decision that was made with respect to El Toro.
In fact, under the city’s general plan, under the county’s general plan, El Toro was supposed to be annexed into the City of Irvine for non-aviation reuse. We expect that that’s what’s going to happen here in Orange County.
And are we – are we dealing with a phantom airport capacity problem – and it is a phantom problem – or are we dealing with a real housing problem in Orange County?
We have a responsibility – [audience applauds] -- to approve housing,
affordable and otherwise, so that people can actually live in this county
and not just work in this county.
As for the so-called V Plan – we’ve been through the A Plan, the B Plan, the C Plan, and the D Plan. Now that all of those have failed – those all proposed by the County Board of Supervisors – now we have something that has no documentation whatsoever called the V Plan, where airports are going to – no – mysteriously, airplanes are going to appear and land and then take off from El Toro, and it won’t adversely affect anyone—
WARREN OLNEY: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to interrupt you simply because we have one minute left before we have to go off the air, and I want to give Supervisor Smith an opportunity to quickly respond to this question about the general plan. We will come back. We’ll have more questions from the audience. And we will then broadcast those on the Internet.
But for our listening audience, Supervisor, quickly, if you will, the general plan which predated El Toro, what about that?
CHARLES "CHUCK" SMITH: Well, the – the environmental impact report looked
at all – several different plans for the airport, and they chose one plan
as the preferred plan, and that’s the plan that we’re proposing building
to. This other V Plan was – was looked at and – and selected to be put
amongst those that were not right for this airport. And the environmental
impact report is the one that has the correct planning for the airport,
and that’s the one that the county is using.
WARREN OLNEY: Okay. Thank you all very much. We’re going to take a – again, I’m just going to read the credits for our program because that’s a requirement here on our – our program will then go off the radio, but we will be available on kcrw.com. And you in the audience are encouraged to stay. We’ll continue to have this conversation with our guests until 8:00 tonight.
***