Fifth district Councilwoman Stacy Mungo immediately made a motion to approve, seconded by 3rd dist. Councilwoman Suzie Price (salient transcript below.)

[Scroll down for further.]

Joe Sopo of Neighborhoods First was among multiple speakers testifying and urged an alternative to the Mungo/Price motion. Mr. Sopo read aloud portions of Feb. 2015 testimony by former LB Airport Advisory Commissioner / current LB City Prosecutor Doug Haubert who explained to LB's Airport Advisory Commission that because a customs facility couldn't be limited to one operator, it could effectively subject Long Beach's protective Airport ordinance to an entirely new category of risk exposure from international (cargo and/or passenger) operators (if all flight slots under the ordinance are filled...and only nine for aircraft over 75,000 pounds are vacant now.)

If the City were to lose its protective Airport ordinance, neighborhoods in parts of Councilwoman Mungo's 5th district district and in parts of Price's 3rd district could be impacted by an unlimited number of daily flights unregulated by the City (passenger and/or cargo) at all hours (no curfew) on all runways, in addition to already impacted areas of LB's 4th, 8th and 7th Council districts.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Mr. Sopo urged the Council to first examine the risks and exposures that a federal customs facility/international flights could invite and get a legal opinion from the City Attorney (possibly retaining special aviation counsel) before spending $349,000 in Airport funds to see if the customs facility might be "feasible."

Mr. Sopo: ...The Council's approval of a customs facility would effectively incentivize, provide the economic bait, enabling an entirely new class of countless international operators -- passenger and cargo -- to seek flight slots that might be unavailable under LB's protective ordinance. The minute those slots are filled, any one of that entirely new, large and powerful class of international operators would have an incentive to challenge to potentially destroy LB's protective Airport ordinance.

If LB Airport management has $349,000 to spare, we urge the Council to divert that sum be put aside as part of a permanent legal defense fund to continually protect our ordinance from those who could do us harm, instead of inviting others to do so.

[Mr. Sopo's position paralleled that of an LBREPORT.com Editorial which quoted Mr. Haubert's AAC testimony [which to our knowledge hasn't been reported elsewhere to date; transcript below.]

Retired Councilwoman Rae Gabelich noted that the Airport had already quietly had two financial feasibility studies conducted in 2013 and urged Councilmembers to make substitute motion to receive and file the new Feasibility study.

Following public testimony, Airport Director Bryant Francis acknowledged that he expects other international operators to seek the facility, and cited Gulfstream...to which Councilwoman Mungo responded that the company had recently created 200 high paying jobs [and didn't pursue the risks/exposure just read aloud to her.] LBREPORT.com provides a transcript below.

Councilwoman Price, who seconded Mungo's motion, said she prefers to make decisions based on data...but like Mungo didn't pursue the cautions raised in Haubert's testimony.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Council discussion following public testimony included the following:

Councilwoman Mungo: Airport Director, do you believe that this study has greater impact than to any one carrier? Would you elabnorate on that?

Airport Director Francis: Counciwoman Mungo, we do believge that in terms of the users of this facility should it come to fruition at some point in the future, it would extend beyond a single carrier in JetBlue. It is true that JetBlue submitted a formal request to my attention at the end of February [2015] which is what began this procves that we are here to discuss this evening and consider. However, we do believe there will be other beneficiaries at the Airport in terms of others of our tenant mix, including the General Aviation community, Gulfstream, which has a major completion center, their only west coast operation for the completion of their aircraft, so we do believe that there will be other users beyond JetBlue for that facility.

Councilwoman Mungo: I think it's interetsing you meantioned Gulfstream; they've increased employees by I believe 200 this year with all high paying jobs. Would you say that when this study comes back, should it not be beneficial to the City, that this would potentially put the item of the international terminal as a "no" to rest forever, or at least the imaginable long term future?

Airport Director Francis: So I certainly wouldn't say forever but what I would like to see is the results of the study and that I think would be very telling in terms of giving you the Council the information that you need to make the informed decision as to whether to proceed with the project. There is nothing in this scope that will incldue design; they will look at potential sites for the FIS to be located on. They would look at things in terms of potential scale but there will be no design of a facility itself. We would come back to council with the full results of this study before any of those determinations would be made and those would be made by you...

---

Councilwoman Price: When we voted on this before, my position was that data is good it'sa lways good and I prefer to make decisions based on all of the data that we have rather than speculation on many things that come before us, especially things that happen in my district so I don't see that this is going to be any different in terms of the process...

Councilman Austin reiterated his July 2015 position that he believes the risks to the Airport ordinance don't justify the Feasibility study and made a motion to receive and file (seconded by Uranga.) It failed on a 3-6 vote (with Austin, Uranga and Supernaw voting "yes.") The main motion to approve by Mungo/Price then passed on a reverse 6-3 vote (Yes: Gonzalez, Lowenthal, Price, Mungo, Andrews, Richardson; No: Supernaw, Uranga, Austin.)

Airport Director Francis indicated he expects the "Feasibility Study" to be completed in July and brought to the Council in August.

An agendizing memo says the City Attorney's Office will conduct a [agendizing memo text] "risk assessment of the potential threats to the Airport Noise Control Ordinance, and a plan to mitigate impacted neighborhoods and schools from environmental and health impacts, should the Airport Noise Control Ordinance become invalidated." During Council colloquy, Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais indicated the City Attorney plans to present its report jointly with the "Feasibility Study" and both will be brought to the Council at the same time. [If allowed to stand, that chronology could effectively limit the public to three minutes of City Council meeting podium time to address all issues raised on these items, and potentially others that might be agendized at the same time [as with the Civic Center transaction] when the City Council casts its decisional votes on the matter.]

For the record, LBREPORT.com provides a transcript of Mr. Haubert's Feb. 19, 2015 Airport Advisory Commission testimony below. Our transcript is unofficial, prepared by us; bracketed material is added for clarity.

Q: ...I have a few questions, and I think it was brought up at Tuesday night's [Feb. 17] City Council meeting, the challenge I think back in 2003 [actually 2001-02] that was specifically to the allocation [of flight slots], correct?...

City Prosecutor Haubert: [indicates yes]

Q: ...but that had the potential, correct me if I'm wrong, that had the potential to dismantle or allow for review of the actual Ordinance altogether?

City Prosecutor Haubert: Yes. This actually comes up with some frequency and Councilmembers have asked me, 'as long as we don't amend the noise ordinance, it'll always be there, right?' And I say: 'Well, no.' [notes Council action or a citizens petition could amend or repeal the ordinance, and adds]...Congress could take their pen and strike out our exemption [from the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act] and our entire noise ordinance would be gone [or] if someone were to sue in court, and a federal district court judge would invalidate our noise ordinance or any part of it...So if a judge were to invalidate our Ordinance it'd be gone...

Q: So why haven't airlines challenged it in the past?

City Prosecutor Haubert: Think of it this way: why would they? Who has a motive to challenge the noise ordinance? For many, many years, we had, what, 8, 6 or 10 flights...If you wanted another flight, you just ask for it and we'll give you another slot...If you remember, what happened [in 2001] was our flight allocation resolution, not an ordinance, just the...rules of how we're going to give out the slots. It required a 90 day ramp up period, you can have a slot but you have to start using it in 90 days. And JetBlue came along and said well we can't ramp up the fast but we want all 27 of your [then-available slots for large aircraft over 75,000 pounds] we'll take 'em if you allow us to ramp up service in 180 days. And so I'm sure the Council talked to the City Attorney and he said 'sure fine, you're not changing the ordinance, you're just changing how you give out the slots' and the Council said 'sure we'll give you 180 days to ramp up your service.' And so JetBlue took that and the other airlines said, 'now hold on here. If you had asked me if I wanted 180 days to ramp up service, I would have taken the slots, or some of them,' and this is after the fact...they're angry because JetBlue got the slots. That's when all hell breaks loose...[Airlines] are fighting with each other; we're just a casualty if another airline wants into the airport and all 41 slots are allocated, how are they going to get it?...So to answer your question, which is a great question, I think the crisis will come when someone sees an opportunity here in Long Beach, so the type of opportunity will dictate who challenges us and what form of challenge it will take.

Q: I've just been trying to wrap my head around lately community concern about what direction the Airport may take and certain perspectives that, where I thought may be slippery-slope argument, but it is valid that if you present certain opportunities, then someone may seize those opportunities to go a certain direction with the Airport...

City Prosecutor Haubert: I guarantee that at the time they gave those slots to JetBlue, nobody thought that action could have resulted in a lawsuit in federal district court to invalidate the noise ordinance but it came that close...

Q: Am I correct in assuming if they challenge the Ordinance and win, is the other side well then the government's going to come in and say we're in control now under the Act and open up the whole Airport?

City Prosecutor Haubert: ...[I]f a judge simply wipes out the entire ordinance, Long Beach would have no local control, no direct control, even though we own the Airport, aviation, landings, that's all handled by the [federal] government. The fact that we have a curfew at night, you can't fly on the lateral runways [25R/7L, 25L/7R), the limit on how much noise a plane can come in between 7 a.m., that's gone. All those are out the door unless the federal government came in and imposed those themselves but for the most part we would have no local control over the Airport...

Q: At the Tuesday meeting at City Council, the community had a lot of fears about international flights if JetBlue does request them. Is there any validation to that fear, which I was told, if there's international flights maybe they'll want to have more flights to come in and then they'll take us to court and then there goes our Ordinance. Is there any validation to that fear.

A: City Prosecutor Haubert: There's probably a different answer for each person in this room, as far as whether or not they believe it is. Since you're asking me, I'll give you may opinion and some of you may not agree with this, but here's how I look at it.

Remember the last time we had a close call with the noise ordinance? It was when one airline filled up the slots and another airline wanted some slots. That is the dynamic we [currently] have for domestic carriers. If we allow international flights and there's an international carrier that wants slots and comes here and says 'why can't I have more slots? I want more slots; I don't want JetBlue to fly into my territory; I want to compete with them head to head.' If that's what they say and there's not enough slots, you now have someone who has a motive to go into Long Beach and challenge the noise ordinance. In my opinion, it is an area the City should be extremely [emphasis in original] cautious because you're creating in addition to the domestic carriers who potentially might be the suspects to challenge our Ordinance, and I don't even know all the international carriers, but you're essentially creating a whole new list of suspects that might want to challenge our noise Ordinance. That's the first thing. The second thing is if you remember that first challenge was the result of someone feeling that the system was "gamed," that JetBlue came in, they got an extension, they were able to ramp up the service, and Long Beach didn't do it to game anything; I guarantee no one was trying to do something that was surreptitious...They just thought no one wanted our slots, somebody finally wants our slots, let's give it to 'em, if it takes 'em six months, fine. But it's that feeling of the unfairness. If someone looks at JetBlue and says 'JetBlue gets all these international flights because they're under-utilizing their existing slots' they may feel that that's unfair too and that may create that argument that they want to challenge the noise ordinance because they weren't treated fairly...So those are two things that I'd be extremely, extremely careful and if the City can do anything to guarantee that those dynamics don't create a motive or an environment for someone who has an interest in challenging the noise ordinance, it would be very smart.

Q: ...If you're saying that if we provide that incentive with...the international facility, we provided that incentive, then another carrier, albeit domestic existing or a new international want to compete or have those slots, we don't currently allocate where a slot goes, correct?

City Prosecutor Haubert: Correct.

Q: ...I just don't understand why at that point they would bring a lawsuit as opposed to now, I mean we're not currently regulating where aircraft fly to.

City Prosecutor Haubert: ...Airline X currently flies from...Long Beach to Texas and so who's their competition? Other airlines that fly from Long Beach to Texas, right? What if that airline is now going to fly from Long Beach to, say, Cabo San Lucas? I don't know who flies from the L.A. area to Cabo San Lucas...but whoever that person is going to feel threatened by another airline that now has a route to Cabo San Lucas....That's exactly what happened last time with JetBlue. Someone felt threatened. I think there were two airlines that complained to the FAA because they felt threatened [by] another airline that's competing in their markets...JetBlue can [currently] fly anywhere in the country [domestically] they want to fly [but if LB allowed international flights] now you're opening up to a worldwide market...[Other carriers] may want to fly internationally as well [and would seek slots]...Wherever they go in the world they're going to be competing with somebody; whoever they compete with is going to feel threatened...just as happened 10 years ago...As a lawyer...I'm very cautious. I'm paid to worry.

Advertisement

Advertisement