Transcript excerpts follow:

...One issue that has gotten some press here is the 3 million annual passengers for Long Beach, whether that's an expansion or not. It really isn't. That's just a forecast based on the adopted, currently in place [LB] noise rules that allow the 41 airline flights and 25 commuter flights, which may be the regional jet type of aircraft.

Part of the very, very best case for us in terms of how many passengers that means would be an assumption of a fleet mix that has some 757s, some MD-80s, 737s, 300 (inaudible) 900s, and a very high load factor such as 75%. And those were some of the assumptions used by SCAG in order to arrive at roughly 3 million annual passengers.

But, I mean, If you're really interested in a seeing a detailed work up of that. it's just a planning exercise basically. But it presumes all the existing rules stay in place. [intervening inaudible Commission colloquy]

...When we had 41 flights in the late 1980s, the load factors were very poor, below 50%. So if you assume that same (inaudible) had a 75% load factor, that could add probably, bring us up to over 2 million annual passengers.

It also had a pretty restricted fleet at the time. If we had more of the current fleet of quieter airplanes like the 757s with higher capacity, that would also probably jack it up to 2.3 or 2.5 million.

Then if you assume that the commuter flights were flown by 25 RJ [we assume "regional jet"] flights (inaudible) capacity at 65-70%, and that could get you (inaudible).

We can show you a workup of that if you're interested but it's all conjecture. Basically it's just a lot is going to depend on what airlines we get and what their fleet mix is and whether or not we can attract RJ's on that basis.

We'll never do well here with an old commuter concept of feeding a hub like LAX (inaudible) but if we do attract the regional jets it will be in point to point service, such as say Sacramento for example.

And whether the industry goes in that direction, that remains to be seen. So it could be 2 million passengers, it could be 3 million. The outside, I think the best we probably could ever expect would be about 3.

At the April Airport Advisory Commission meeting, in response to a question posed during the public comment period on behalf of LBReport.com, Mr. Kunze said airport area street widenings, new parking structures and new airport area hotels are also consistent with LB's flight and noise limits (transcript excerpts below):

...There are specific references to facilities, for example, during the 1980s, when we were in litigation with the airlines. We as a city were trying to gain control of our airport. We had lost control of our destiny. We were at the whim if you will of a central district court and a federal appellate court.

The facilities currently at the Long Beach Airport, in terms of terminal facilities, the parking structure, the [inaudible] at the baggage claim, were designed for 15 flights a day. Those were put in the ealry 1980s right after the city adopted its first noise compatibility ordinance. It provided for 15 flights a day.

The design criteria was 15 MD-80 size aircraft, that's how we sized everything including the peak hour assumption of three concurrent MD-80s. As we grew during the '80s because of the federal court mandate, it was not in our best interests to expand our facilities because we were fighting all of that [inaudible]...

So our facilities are still designed for 15 daily flights at peak hour use of 3 MD-80s. We know from our experience during that time that it was horribly congested, those of you who might of used the airport those times, you can remember the long lines that went all the way out into the street to get through the security screening.

We have now a business plan that says that we'll live within our existing rules, that we're going to maintain the convenience and low cost of our airport. The only way we controlled the demand for parking here at times was through economics, the price elasticity of demand. We raised the rates until the demand went down.

We ended up with, luckily, adequate parking even when we were at 41 flights. We could do the same thing now, we could charge $24 a day or triple area parking and adequate facilities. That's not in our business plan. We don't see that in the city's Strategic Plan and they are requiring just the opposite as a matter of fact.

That's why we're looking at comfortable accommodating the 41 flights. During 1991 [said 1941, misspeak], there no commuter flights at the airport, I think for a short time there were a couple of true commuters that went to LAX, it didn't last very long. Up to 25 [daily flights], that is all capacity that could be implemented at the Airport now that the [inaudible] are getting and more active in the U.S. airlines fleet.

So our forecast assumes that especially if we're looking at 10, 15, 20 years out in our forecast period, that we will have a regional jet activity that qualifies as under 75,000 pounds under our ordinance [which could fit in the 25 commuter flight slots].

Also, you look at the load factors [percentage of seats filled] and the aircraft types back during the 1980s. The average load factors were in the low 50%. Right now, the industry load factors are in the high 60%. And again, we have to design especially, certain facilities like parking, not for averages but for our peak use. For example, during vacation periods, and as such, there are some days at any airport where load factors are virtually 100%, that's how you come up to averages of 70% or 75% range.

So these are all factors that we're taking into account, given that we do want to accommodate traffic that we're allowed to do under our existing noise ordinance and pursuant to the City's Adopted 2010 "Strategic Plan" we're to actively and aggressively market and gain commerce and air transportation (inaudible) so that's what we're doing.

Everything that's being proposed right now in terms of terminal area improvements are already funded with federal grants or will be in terms of the common public use area; in terms of the parking structure, that will be funded by a developer for the hotel. Whether the hotel is the highest and best use, we believe it is based on the demand for hotels rooms in the city.

Also, that will front the cost that will be paid from the Airport Enterprise Fund, not the General Purpose [Fund] cost involved.

[Re Lakewood Blvd. improvements]...those are being financed by the Airport Area Traffic Assessment District. The Airport is a small part of that and within that part that we're responsible for only about half of that relates to airline related flights, so with or without the airline flights, there has been a need for many years for the Lakewood Blvd, Spring Street, Willow intersection, all the way up to Carson, all of those improvements, so it doesn't relate specifically to the airline flights with a very small exception.

[In conclusion]...These [SCAG 3 million annual passenger] forecasts, there's nothing magical about them, we may end up at 1.5 or 2 million, we don't know. But when you're sizing facilities, especially parking structures, and we're looking at a marketplace that's changed a lot now from what it was 15 years ago, we believe it's very reasonably likely that we could successfully market those 41 flights, and at least a good portion of the [25] commuter flights, we believe that unless there's major changes in the economy, that airlines will do well out of Long Beach, especially if we continue to charge low fares to the airlines and end users.

So for us it's a rational approach to take, to try to design those facilities for the higher end of the potential range, but it is a planning process. We don't guarantee that we're going to have 41 flights with 70% load factors. We might end up with 30 [flights] and 55% load factors (inaudible) and there's a risk involved in that...