Public speakers during the "study session" (no decisional Council vote taken) cited multiple grounds to question, doubt and dispute an Airport-hired consultant's "feasibility study" on the issue.

Thirty-two speakers lined up to testify in opposition; they spanned five Council districts (3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 with most from 4 and 8.) Only five individuals spoke in support; 4 were from JetBlue (its Sr. VP/Assoc Gen'l Counsel + 3 employees) and a LB Area Chamber rep. JetBlue and the Chamber had both sent emails encouraging supporters to attend and speak.

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement

Advertisement Computer Repair Long Beach

The study session was agendized for a 5:00 p.m. "time certain" but residents were forced to wait roughly an hour and a half for the item to be heard The Council meeting didn't begin until 6:10 p.m...and the study session didn't begin until 6:32 p.m.

City staff's presentation ran from 6:33 p.m. until 7:14 p.m.; then Councilmembers spoke (Austin, Uranga, Supernaw and (asked brief quetsions) Price)...and the public wasn't invited to speak until 8:03 p.m. The next day on Facebook, a number of residents commented that they had to leave due to the delay in starting the Council meeting and getting to what had been promised as a "time certain" study session.

LB Airport Director Jess Romo delivered a Power Point presentation (subbing for a Jacobs rep who couldn't attend due to a family emergency.) Mr. Romo's Power Point presentation included a slide that displayed -- for the first time public since the feasibility study was released on Oct. 4 and forecast only "regional" economic impacts covering L.A. + OC areas) -- figures that Mr. Romo said were an "interpolation" from regional numbers [total L.A. County + O.C.]

Mr. Romo (subbing for a Jacobs rep who was unavailable due to a family emergency) indicated that "interpolation" was done to produce figures for projected economic benefits to Long Beach and said the figures are within a range of $20-$60 million dollars (median of $38 million) [These figures weren't online as part of the City Clerk agendized item and thus unavailable for public (or press) scrutiny prior to the Council study session.] Mr. Romo didn't cite details of the method(s) were used, or by whom, to come up with the "interpolation" of asserted LB benefits but said, "Using sound techniques, we did some interpolation, and came out with some figures that really bring us to the same conclusions, just on a different scale, and as the higher level regional analysis was done." Regarding expressing the figure as within a range, Mr. Romo said: "Because this is something that's typically not done in industry, to keep everybody honest, we just decided it was best to show this as a range as a opposed to a specific dollar amount."

Mayor Garcia (who wasn't present until 6:18 p.m.) didn't explain or apologize for the Council meeting's late start. He acknowledged "concerns" by those living with Airport impacts, brieftly mentioned a memo by LB's City Attorney on customs facility/international flight related issues, and instead focused on economic issues, saying he was concerned that LB's flight-slot-capped Airport ordinance means that international flights by JetBlue might displace some of its current domestic flights that residents and hotel and convention interests favor.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Councilman Al Austin said his 8th district constituents have expressed resounding opposition to int'l flights and they and he are unequivocally opposed to adding a customs facility. Councilman Roberto Uranga said he sought the study session because previous City Commission proceedings on the issue were one-sided presentations with little public interaction.

4th dist. Councilman Daryl Supernaw detailed late night flights from JetBlue that violated the Airport ordinance's stated curfew. Supernaw cited numbers in detail, and used them to dispute a frequent JetBlue statement that the company is "100% committed" to the Airport noise ordinance [that its late night operations continually violate.] Although the City Attorney's office says that the ordinance doesn't distinguish where flights go or come from, Supernaw said it does matter from where flights come, especially if the flights come from weather-impacted areas or, if international operations were allowed, from foreign locations with less than reliable on-time records. Councilman Supernaw added that although the consultant-prepared feasibility study concluded a customs facility is feasible, that doesn't mean that the city needs it or wants it.

Councilman Supernaw briefly yielded to Councilwoman Suzie Price (chair of the Public Safety Committee) and invited her to inquire about the extent to which LBPD or federal officers would handle security issues. Councilwoman Pearce asked and the City Attorney offered clarification about the Airport ordinance's current fine/penalty structure for late night flights; the City Attorney clarified the differences in the ordinance's relatively small fines vs. larger sums that JetBlue is required to pay under a continuing criminal consent decree for its late night flights.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Fifth district Councilwoman Stacy Mungo said nothing -- either before or after the public spoke -- and asked no questions. Councilmember Gonzalez said nothing and asked nothing. Councilmembers Andrews and Richardson didn't attend the study session. [We learned that Richardson is in Washington, D.C. for a Dec. 14 White House staged event. Separate coverage coming on LBREPORT.com.]

The item as agendized was to receive a file a presentation on a feasibility study [prepared by an Airport-hired consultant.] Mayor Garcia, who only briefly acknowledged an accompanying city attorney memo on the legal issues, didn't invite the City Attorney's office to make any presentation. No Councilmembers inquired about or questioned any aspects of the City Attorney's memo.

Public testimony ran from 8:03 p.m. until 9:50 p.m. Residents described the disruptive impacts of current flights. One woman played audio of what it sounded like inside her home as an aircraft roared overhead in the daytime and at 3 a.m. In addition to disruptive noise, a number of speakers cited health, safety and pollution concerns.

More than one speaker noted that the Airport-hired consultant's "feasibility study" listed only positive benefits and either didn't find negative impacts or portrayed them as "speculative." One speaker commented that the entire "feasibility study" was speculative. Others said the feasibility study should have included negative impacts on property values and potential impacts if the City lost its Airport ordinance.

Only five persos spoke in support: 4 four JetBlue (including Sr. VP/Assoc. Gen'l Counsel Rob Land), 1 from LB Area Chamber. Both entities had waged email efforts seeking support at the meeting.

Advertisement

Mayor Garcia (presiding) didn't invite, and Councilmembers (a majority of whom could overrule his decisions through a floor motion) didn't seek to allow, questions directly from the public, who could only offer comments (leaving Councilmembers to ask or no ask any questions they might have.)

Following public testimony, Councilman Austin said he had about "100" questions but decided to submit them in writing to city staff for staff's subsequent responses online.

Councilman Uranga questioned the consultant's contention that an environmental impact report performed over ten years ago when the Council was debating expanding the size of the Airport's permanent terminal area facilities is adequate for the impacts and potential impacts raised now. Uranga asked city staff to provide information on Airport-related air quality impacts.

The Dec. 13 non-voting sudy session took place on the same night when city staff had previously agendized a voted-action item on whether the Council would authorize city staff to engage in discussions with JetBlue and aviation interests to negotiate/decide on certain actions that could enable a future Council decision on a customs facility. That item was no longer on the Dec. 13 Council agenda; it was withdrawn after a Dec. 6 motion by Councilmember Mungo moved, seconded by Price (passed 6-3, Uranga, Austin, Supernaw dissenting) that authorized city staff to take those actions and set a date for decisional Council vote on January 24, 2017.

These Council actions weren't specifically agendized for Council action on Dec. 6; the item as agendized by Councilmembers Austin, Uranga and Supernaw simply sought a Dec. 13 study session. Retired Councilwoman Rae Gabelich has filed a complaint letter with the District Attorney's office alleging that the Dec. 6 Council majority's action violated the Brown (open meetings) Act; the City Attorney's office, which allowed the Dec. 6 action to occur, has publicly denied this.