(January 28, 2005) -- Stating that they "want to work towards a responsible consensus plan that addresses the needs and concerns of both the airport users and the impacted neighborhoods," Councilmembers Tonia Reyes Uranga, Patrick O'Donnell and Rae Gabelich have jointly agendized an item for the February 1 City Council meeting seeking Council approval for EIR preparation purposes of Airport management's terminal facilities expansion option "Alternative Two."

Alternative Two -- which Airport management has publicly presented as among the Council's plausible options -- is smaller than management's current preferred choice and the smallest among management's current offered options -- but larger than management proposed in its official Sept. 2003 Notice of EIR Preparation.

Also for consideration at the February 1 Council meeting, Councilmembers O'Donnell and Gabelich have agendized a proposed Neighborhood & Stakeholder Protection Plan that would include a City Attorney report outlining "all legal options available to protect and defend the City’s Noise Ordinance as related to all current facilities and proposed modernization"; plus a mitigation policy for schools, churches and homes including windows, sound proofing, air conditioning and buy out programs; agreements with air carriers to help fund up-front costs of modernizing Airport facilities; and rough elevations and conceptual drawings of management's proposed expanded Airport facilities.

LBReport.com posts the full text of Councilmembers' agendizing memoranda below.

"In light of the need to protect our current noise ordinance, and to protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods, we believe the AAC [Airport Advisory Commission] endorsed 133,243 square foot plan is oversized. What started as a modernization plan to address the high passenger loads brought on by the arrival of Jet Blue and new security requirements, has grown into an expansion plan that encompasses much more. We acknowledge that a need exists to modernize facilities, especially in this post-9/11 security environment, however this need must be balanced with the needs of those communities most impacted by airport operations," Councilmembers O'Donnell, Reyes Uranga and Gabelich write in their agendizing memo, asking that staff be directed to prepare an EIR that includes:

"Our airport is unique and requires more than a standardized approach," the Councilmembers write in an agendizing memo, adding:

The proposed Neighborhood & Stakeholder Protection Plan is more specific than the set of Guiding Principles to govern Airport policy on marketing and user responsibilities, discussed in a Council committee and also scheduled to come to the Council on February 1.

City management had indicated that it planned to seek Council approval on February 8 for increases to its previously proposed expansion of LB Airport's permanent terminal area facilities.

The scope of the airport facilities EIR had been scheduled to come to the City Council over a year ago -- in December 2003 -- with smaller facility sizes specified by Airport management than it now proposes.

However in October 2003 (with elections in airport-impacted Council districts 4 and 8 looming in Spring 2004), the Council -- on its own motion -- effectively delayed an EIR vote by referring the Airport facilities issue first to a non-elected "Airport Advisory Commission" (AAC). The AAC had no legal power to decide the Airport terminal issue, but the Council's referral effectively pushed a Council vote on the EIR scope into the period after April and June 2004 Council elections. In those elections, 4th and 8th district airport-impacted voters removed two incumbents who had been backed by LB Mayor Beverly O'Neill.

At the same time, Airport management used the intervening period to work with HNTB (a firm which does planning work and also builds public works projects including airports) on new proposed Airport terminal facility sizes. When the new sizes were publicly unveiled by HNTB in May 2004, they were significantly larger than what city management announced in September 2003 (which the Council referred to the AAC).

Airport management's new proposal is two stories high and sized using what HNTB calls industry standards, FAA recommendations and empirical (real world) passenger levels reflecting updated load factors (percentage of filled seats) and newer aircraft.

For a comparison of Airport management's currently preferred choice with what City Hall officially described in its September 2003 Notice of EIR Preparation, see LBReport.com June 2004: Details Of City Mgt's Proposed LB Airport Permanent Terminal Facilities Expansion; Parts Are Larger Than City Hall's Notice of EIR Preparation For Project In Sept. 03)

The increase in Airport management's preferred choice is sufficiently significant that City Hall acknowledges that it plans to issue an entirely new Notice of Preparation for the EIR.

HNTB, a major firm which helped construct the Alameda Corridor, said its recommended sizes were based in part on FAA recommendations and "industry standards" and was downsized by HNTB in some respects to reflect LB Airport's constricted area.

The lion's share of the proposed increase is for concessions. In response to an Airport Advisory Commission request for three smaller alternatives, HNTB provided three options -- including Alternative Two -- but argued that downsizing proposed concession areas from HNTB's recommendation could reduce city concession revenue.

In spring 2001, Airport management told the Southern California Association of Governments (and SCAG approved) a forecast in which LB Airport would handle 3.0 million annual passengers by 2025. By spring 2004, LB Airport management said LGB expects to handle roughly 4.2-4.3 million annual passengers when LB's currently allowed flight slots are filled.

The Council's "Airport Advisory Commission" (Mayor selected, Council approved) currently has a majority (not required by city law but permitted by former Councils) of current or former private pilots and others with aviation related ties. One of the AAC's nine members is a member of LBHUSH2.

In July 2004, the Airport Advisory Commission asked city staff to present two smaller alternatives to the HNTB-Airport management sizing. HNTB and Airport staff provided the alternatives but HNTB argued that reducing the size of concession areas would produce less city revenue. In September 2004, the Airport Advisory Commission voted 6-3 (Haubert, Alton and Soccio dissenting) to approve Airport management's larger proposed expansion, then spent another month on additional recommendations.

Councilmembers publicly received management's larger proposed Airport terminal facility sizes for the first time at a November 2004 study session. At that time, several Councilmembers asked questions and suggested alternatives. With intervening holidays, city staff didn't respond until a January 2005 study session.

As previously reported by LBReport.com, following the January study session, Councilmembers Frank Colonna and Rae Gabelich sent a joint memo to City Manager Jerry Miller, asking city staff for more detailed information regarding Alternative Two.

"The purpose is to evaluate this alternative as the maximum building proposal and to review the feasibility of two additional build alternatives between the "no build" proposal and the #2 Alternative that could reduce building 10% or more," the Councilmembers wrote.

Noting that city management acknowledged during the January study session that its block drawings provided to date don't accurately depict the proposals, the Councilmembers also asked staff to prepare rough elevations (overhead and ground views) of what Alternative #2 and the lesser sizes alternatives. "We believe these visuals could help the Council and community better understand the suggested proposals," the Councilmembers wrote.

LBReport.com has learned that city management declined to provide the information requested by Councilmembers Colonna and Gabelich prior to a scheduled February 8 Council meeting at which management planned to (again) press Councilmembers to adopt management's larger preferred options.

Until early 2004, Airport management said it expected roughly 3.8 million annual passengers (with all 25 commuter slots filled, not currently flying). Citing recalculations with newer aircraft and higher empirical load factors, Airport management says passenger levels will be roughly 4.2-4.3 million annually...roughly 40% higher than the 3.0 million figure adopted in 2001 by the Southern California Association of Governments for LB Airport by 2025.

Meanwhile, voters in Council districts 4 and 8 removed incumbents whose re-election had been publicly favored by LB Mayor Beverly O'Neill.

During her January 11, 2005 "State of the City" address, Mayor O'Neill said in part, "In many cases visitors get their initial look and impression of our community at the Airport. Our Airport was never designed to handle over 3 million travelers -- that is a 300% increase since 2001 thanks in large part to JetBlue. We need an airport that is consistent with our image as a tourist and business center. It’s time for us to reach consensus to solve our situation, the sooner the better..."

JetBlue became LB Airport's major commercial carrier following a May 2001 Council vote (motion by Councilwoman Jackie Kell, supporting a city staff agenda item) which revised the Airport's flight slot allocation rules by letting carriers hold slots longer before flying them. Following the Council vote (8-1, Carroll dissenting), JetBlue took all then-vacant LB Airport large aircraft flight slots, maxing them out at 41.

There was no serious Council discussion of possible consequences...including pressure to expand LB Airport's permanent terminal area facilities. LB residents also weren't told that prior to the Council vote, some City Hall officials had engaged in contacts with JetBlue.

The Council's May 2001 vote was not required by any court order or by the FAA...but did put LB's Airport Noise ordinance at risk.

Following the Council's May 2001 action, some of LB Airport's other carriers triggered an FAA administrative procedure that could have progressed to FAA enforcement action or a federal lawsuit. JetBlue assisted City Hall by relinquishing some of its flight slots, which facilitated negotiation of an FAA-approved settlement. However, the FAA stated that it viewed the Council's May 2001 vote (letting a carrier hold a flight slot for a lengthy period before flying it) as an unreasonable restriction...and told City Hall to reverse its May 2001 flight slot allocation rule change (which the Council recently did).

JetBlue's interest in LB Airport was facilitated in part by Kristy Ardizzone, a long-time aviation enthusiast and private pilot, who then-chaired the Council's "Airport Advisory Commission." Following the May 2001 Council vote, JetBlue retained Ms. Ardizzone as a consultant, during which she continued to serve on the Airport Advisory Commission without Council objection. JetBlue subsequently offered Ms. Ardizzone a fulltime position, which she accepted, exiting the Airport Advisory Commission...whose majority now backs Airport management's larger proposal.

As previously reported by LBReport.com, the three dissenting AAC members (Haubert, Alton and Soccio) who backed a more modest expansion recently submitted a lengthy letter to the Council detailing their reasons.

As also separately reported by LBReport.com, the LB Area Chamber of Commerce has written Councilmembers, urging Councilmembers to "immediately initiate" the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process "and consider ALL [emphasis in original] the options" presented by the Airport Advisory Commission for "a complete study and evaluation."

The agendizing memoranda by Councilmembers O'Donnell, Reyes Uranga and Gabelich follow:

[begin text]