Council Feb. 17 "Study Session" To Hear Presentation on Protective Long Beach Airport Ordinance Incl. City Att'y, City Prosecutor, City Mgm't With "Community Stakeholder Input" To Be "Accommodated"</a>

LBReport.com

News / Perspective

Council Feb. 17 "Study Session" To Hear Presentation on Protective Long Beach Airport Ordinance Incl. City Att'y, City Prosecutor, City Mgm't With "Community Stakeholder Input" To Be "Accommodated"

Multiple Add'l Factors Re Int'l Flights Not Yet Discussed By Policy-Setting Council

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(Feb. 15, 2015, 10:40 a.m.) -- On Feb. 17 at 4 p.m., the City Council is scheduled to hold a "study session" to [agendized text] "receive a presentation on the Long Beach Airport Noise Ordinance."

The study session stems from a November 11, 2014 item agendized by Councilman Al Austin, joined by Councilman Roberto Uranga and [now Assemblyman] Patrick O'Donnell. In their agendizing memo, the Councilmembers wrote:

[Scroll down for further.]

[Nov. 11, 2014 Austin-Uranga-O'Donnell agendizing memo text]
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Request the City Manager to schedule an Airport Noise Ordinance Study Session to educate the entire council as to the history, importance, and background on this vulnerable protection for our community. Said Study Session shall include but not be limited to city management, city prosecutor, and city attorney staff. Community stakeholder input should be accommodated as well. This meeting shall be scheduled/conducted within the next 45 days.
BACKGROUND: Long Beach's Airport Noise Ordinance provides a unique protection for the neighborhoods in Long Beach that are impacted by airline flights. It affects the growth and development of the Airport so it is compatible with the surrounding residential communities. With some airlines publicly stating desired changes to the Long Beach Airport, and with the imminent selection of a new Airport Director, it is important that the City Council have a timely study session to ensure a thorough understanding of the City's Airport Noise Ordinance, how it protects Long Beach neighborhoods, and it's unique standing and enforcement mechanisms.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.

The Council agreed to hold the study session on an 8-1 vote (Andrews absent for entire meeting).

Perspective

LB's Airport ordinance is the City's sole legal protection against unlimited numbers of daily take-offs and landings (cargo and passenger) at its airport at all hours of the day and night. Without the protective Airport Ordinance, Long Beach would be left basically without local control of its Airport as to its number of daily flights and their hours of operation.

In June 2014, LBREPORT.com reported that internal documents obtained under state freedom of information law showed LB Airport management had worked quietly through 2013, without Council discussion or voted policy approval, to facilitate JetBlue's desire to add a federal inspection facility that would enable international flights (LBREPORT.com coverage at this link.) The documents show that Airport management informed LB's then-Mayor and then-Council of what it was doing in the latter half of 2013 but the incumbents -- approaching the 2014 election cycle -- didn't disclose the developments to the public.

JetBlue was more transparent. Its executives stated in early 2014 that the NY based corporation sought the ability to conduct international flights from Long Beach (which it knew weren't allowed in LB when it began operations here in 2000.) City management initially told media outlets that the City's actions were at an early stage, but documents obtained by LBREPORT.com show that by late 2013, Airport management had already informed then-Mayor Foster and then-Council incumbents that Airport management was prepared to request federal approval for a federal inspection facility if the Council approved.

In two memos to the Council in the latter half of 2013, Airport management said the protective Airport ordinance should remain intact and addressed the issue solely in terms of Airport costs. It didn't address an arguable new risk exposure to the City's protective Airport Ordinance from enabling a new category of international operators to seek flight slots. There are currently no LB flight slots available under the Ordinance for large aircraft (over 75,000 pounds); they're currently all filled or nearly filled at this point mainly by JetBlue domestic flights. LB's Airport ordinance does allow increased numbers of flights by large aircraft, and is considered among the most progressive in the country for doing so, as large aircraft flights as a class become quieter [which to our knowledge isn't currently the case.]

LB's protective Airport ordinance was framed in terms of noise in the 1990s because the health impacts of toxic particulate pollutants weren't fully understood at that time. These health impacts are much better understood now, including LAX impacts affecting areas up to 10 miles away (LBREPORT.com coverage at this link..) LB Airport directly impacts parts of five of LB's nine Council districts, represented by Councilmembers whose primary duty is protection of the public's health and safety.

Unlike the Port, federal law forbids the City from receiving any General Fund revenue for police, fire, parks, libraries or infrastructure uses outside Airport property from direct Airport operations (airport fees on carriers and the like.) The City does receive spin-off sales tax revenue (roughly a penny on the dollar from food sales, souvenirs and the like) and more sizable hotel room tax from passengers who may stay in Long Beach, which most don't. The City's largest General Fund revenue source is currently property tax revenue.

To date, none of these multiple factors have been seriously discussed by LB's policy-setting City Council. The Council's Feb. 17, 2015 study session as agendized doesn't propose to discuss them; it's focused for now on the City's protective Airport Ordinance.

But separate from safeguarding the City's protective Airport Ordinance, the Council has yet to address a fateful threshold issue: is it in the interest of Long Beach residents to let a NYC based corporation push LB's municipal Airport into becoming an international facility? One that would likely be used mainly by those transiting to L.A. or elsewhere (not staying in LB) or to convey cargo which wouldn't bring any tourism benefits? Did an international airport make Newark, NJ prosperous or help LAX's surrounding areas?

LB Airport is in the center of a city surrounded by four freeways with congestion exacerbated by Port truck traffic and air quality degraded in parts of the city by associated rail, road and ship operations. Adding international air operations, if it were accompanied by loss of the City's protective Airport ordinance, could bring additional freeway congestion, street traffic impacts (including more cargo trucks) and worsen air quality from toxic aircraft engine emissions.

The Feb. 17 study session is unusual in directing that it include the City Attorney, City Prosecutor and City Management [presumably LB Airport management] and specifying that "community stakeholder input should be accommodated as well." It's unclear how the Council will treat the latter phrase. Who are community stakeholders? What does "accommodated" mean? Will LBHUSH2, the community stakeholder group with direct knowledge of decades of events under the ordinance, be allowed to make a presentation beyond 180 seconds at the public speakers podium?

In other "study sessions," the Council has mainly let city management present information while others with expertise on the subject -- who might have information differing from city management -- are relegated to 180 seconds at the public speakers' podium. This was evident during "study sessions" on a new Civic Center, which management said was an "opportunity" invited by City Hall seismic issues. No Councilmembers sought presentations by any independent expert(s) on a seismic retrofit for City Hall that might have differed from cost figures claimed by city management. Those wishing to present such information to the Council in a public Council session faced a three minute limit.

[We presume that at a Council study session, a Council majority can choose to hear and study what it wants to hear and study.]

Because then-incumbent Councilmembers didn't tell the public what Airport management had told them it was doing in 2013, Airport issues didn't seriously arise in the 2014 citywide elections that brought a new Council majority to office.

The Council's Feb. 17 study session on the City's protective Airport ordinance is scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. At 5:00 p.m., a closed Council session (attorney-client) is scheduled on litigation related to the proposed BNSF-proposed SCIG railyard. At 6:00 p.m., the main, open Council meeting is scheduled to begin.

These times are subject to change based on the desire of a Council majority. Last week (Feb. 10), the Mayor and Council let a 4:00 p.m. scheduled study session on LB's medical marijuana ordinance extend until after 9:00 p.m.

LBREPORT.com plans to carry the study session on the City's protective Airport ordinance LIVE on our front page starting at 4 p.m. Tuesday (followed by the full Council meeting to conclusion.)