...We the citizens of Long Beach are on the leading edge of a storm being visited upon us by way of our airport. It has been raging through Los Angeles, the city, the county, Orange County, San Diego County and frankly at the national level as well...

It is my view that we cannot afford to batten down the hatches and hide in the cellar and hope that it passes. We have been through this traumatic incident before. There was about eleven years of litigation involving not only air carriers and the city but our own citizens, 1600 of whom brought suit against the city on the basis that their lives were substantially disrupted. And I hope to present a part of that case this evening.

...One of the critical issues is the location of the airport. Unfortunately, it happens to be in the middle of our city. I do not know how many other cities find themselves in this circumstance but there are neighborhoods that have grown up and developed, and Los Altos is the one I will be speaking on behalf of tonight, that are inordinately impacted.

The problem with an airport from the perspective of the person representing Los Altos is the benefits, to the extent they exist, are widely dispersed throughout the city and principally those are benefits of convenience for our citizens who can take planes in and out of Long Beach as well as the economic dimensions of it, but the burdens are borne by a select few, those immediately under the flight path, either coming in or going out.

It is my belief that those burdens can become so substantial that not only the health of our citizens there can be compromised, but ultimately the economic base which supports those two communities, that is Los Altos and we'll here about Cal Heights from Councilman Webb, can become blighted. That is, the burden can become such that people who have the ability to move, and those people do, will, blight is not something that could be contained and it will spread if it happened, and I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that from happening, not only through Los Altos but up into the 5th district, down into the 3d district.

And it is my hope that this process will begin to educate our citizens that everyone has a stake in this issue. It is a fight that we need to no more move away from but need to actively move into...

[Councilman Carroll discusses Federal Court of Appeal ruling on LB Airport, citing part of the Appeal Court's opinion]...a local airport should be allowed, the court concluded, to enact noise ordinances if it has a rational belief that, number one, the ordinance will reduce the possibility of liability, that is the citizens suing the city because of excessive noise, or enhanced quality of the city's human environment.

And that is the dimension that I would like to explore tonight, and my request by way of this agenda item, concerns itself.

It is my belief that limiting this discussion to noise does a great disservice to the human dimensions of this issue. We know that noise is an important dimension of it but other aspects of it may be at least as important if not more important.

Not the least of which is the nature of the particulates that are spewed out into the atmosphere by the jet fuel. The soot that my neighbors will tell you they hose off their patio furniture in the backyard and their cars and kills their lemon trees. The items, and believe it or not ice even occasionally will fall off a jet plane.

The economic impact, which is argued and used as a justification for our city's airport, I'm sure there are economic benefits, from my perspective has not put into the equation the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of its effect on property values, on the health of the people that live there, on the safety of the children, and I have two schools in the fourth district, each of them have between 700 and a 1,000 children. Those planes fly over and you can count the rivets when they go over. Class stops when the planes go over. And parents have to make decisions about whether they want to keep their children in those schools when our flights are programmed to increase from 15 up to 41. Do they want to remodel their homes, or get out while the getting's good?

These economic and basic fundamental life decisions that all families have to make are under a terrific cloud at this time. And I urge that we do several things...With respect to my part of it, I'm asking for a preliminary report. I'm not asking for an Environmental Impact Report yet. This is the first step. That preliminary report would address several things.

Number one: with respect to a full on Environmental Impact Report, what is the cost of it? The last time we did one on our airport case it was $500,000. We have an update from 1997 that is very helpful to us but doesn't contain everything that I think is germane and relevant to this conversation.

Number two, how long would it take to prepare one?

Number three, who are the persons who are most qualified, who are expert in providing that information to us? I would like to hear from the City Manager and Mr. Shannon, and I would hope within 30 to 45 days, their opinions with respect to that issue, and perhaps include some of these items that we have discussed that may not be directly involved in an Environmental Impact Report, that is the economic dimensions of this problem, and perhaps some of the health issues that could be studied, bring in studies from other cities.

So my request at this time is to get this preliminary report, to put everyone no notice that we are taking an aggressive, proactive stance here. We are not simply going to sit and hope for the best. There's no reason we should.

We have what I judge to be strong, equitable arguments to not only preserve our current noise ordinance but to bring within that current ordinance as suggested by the court [of appeal] that final paragraph with respect to enhancing the quality of the city's human environment.

What I would like to see, and what the law has not fully cognized at this point is a Human Impact Report, and that's what we're really dealing with here...We are working night and day on this issue and will continue to do so until it's resolved on human terms.

...That school where [a recent community meeting] was held [in the 4th district], Minnie Gant school, is directly under the flight [path]...being a parent of kid that is in the Minnie Gant school with 41 flights coming over is certainly a concern that I don't believe was addressed previously, I don't think the full effects of the environmental effects of that were addressed, not to mention LB State [University], and you look of course Longfellow [Elementary School] and Hughes Middle School, and the schools that are on the takeoff path, once again we [in the 8th district] have a more widely distributed area that is affected. I would certainly, if I was a parent of that school, Minnie Gant, where that meeting was held, where those flights are coming directly over the house, I would be certainly very concerned.

And secondly, there have been a lot of studies that the AQMD has done, studies about Multiple Airborne Toxic Exposure, that was not brought up in the original EIR...I think it's good that these items are being addressed...

I want to make it perfectly plain, if I may use that word, and state up front that my position on maintaining our noise ordinance and flight limits has not changed throughout my term on the City Council. My aim with this agenda item is to publicly restate our commitment as a City Council to maintain our current airport noise ordinance and flight slot limits of 41...[Councilwoman Kell asks to hear from Airport Manager Chris Kunze and from Chris Kunze of Chamber of Commerce Airport Area Business Council, both in attendance.]

...As you know, the airport is totally surrounded by residential areas. There's no way to fly in or out of the airport without overflight of those areas which includes schools and churches as well.

I think the resolutions before you tonight very well state the Long Beach community's history of finding the appropriate balance between commerce, air transportation and also quality of life. This balance was determined through years of litigation and a settlement agreement. The end result is well pinioned in environmental law from my perspective and it does permit enhanced levels of air transportation service and economic contribution from our airport.

Importantly, this balanced role for the airport has been grandfathered within federal law which would have otherwise made local self-determination very difficult, and it has been embraced by the community by its adoption within the city's strategic plan...

My Council colleagues have pointed this out very clearly, giving not only historical perspective but I think just the general overview of the direction of the City Council.

I think what's interesting to point out as well that it's no secret that our neighbors to the south voted to dismiss the opportunity of developing an airport in El Toro. And I would like to think that that was the will of the people in the Orange County area because they were concerned about their quality of life, Irvine, Newport Beach and many of the other cities clearly spoke out that they didn't want any airport development to impact their communities.

And I feel that historically, our city has done a lot of heavy lifting for the region and we will probably continue to do so in a lot of ways. But I think that it's also time to establish the fact that we have done all we can do in terms of what we have agreed to do with the number of flights at our particular airport.

And I think it's important as Councilmember Carroll pointed out that we deal not only with the noise issues but also the other factors that come into play when you deal with a significant amount of airline traffic that's coming into a community.

It was mentioned to me earlier this week about the fact that for many years we're wanting to develop more business opportunity and airline interest in Long Beach. It's kind of interesting now that we've become a very popular entity, that we have numerous suitors.

But if you take a look at the history of where we have come now, we have maximized development at the airport in terms of the ability to reconstruct which we have done. We've got newer facilities at the airport...But I think at this point along with the other Councilmembers that have spoke on, the 3d district, the far corner over the Bixby Hill area and Cal State Long Beach, plus Kettering Junior High School, I think we've got issues that are bottom line human impact and I think that's a big, big factor for us.

And I'm very much supportive of the direction that we are taking and will continue to take with this and I'm very pleased to know that our entire Council is finally bringing this to the forefront, and dealing with it openly now before we have challenges placed in front of us.

I'm going to be supporting my colleagues this evening. As you can see from the map, the 2d district isn't really impacted by the airport, but we have a very similar issue with noise and pollution and the many health risks coming from our Port. That's something that my residents in the downtown area and those on the west side of the city have been dealing with for a number of years, and they really are very similar issues.

So I appreciate Councilmember Carroll and the rest of them looking for the information on what really is the result of that airport, what's happening to our residents. To me, the most important issue that we need to focus on is maintaining local control. The more that we do to make sure that it's very clear that we're not going to let anybody else come in here and tell us what to do with our airport, the better off we are. So I will definitely be supporting all three of these items this evening.

...[T]he question becomes not flights or planes or anything else, it's health and safety. It's not just local control...

...We were showing one of the Congressmen about fifteen years ago on the floor of his office what a bullseye airport was. We spread out a map of Long Beach. This bullseye airport is right in the center of half a million people. There are no good places around this airport to land an aircraft in trouble. If someone else has trouble even from another airport we have some real serious problems.

So managing the growth is one thing, but making sure that people understand that already in the west side of Long Beach we have young people who, it's documented, are sick more than any other kids in the city of Long Beach, documented by Long Beach Unified School district. Now I don't think those parents, and I don't think we care, whether it's the oil refineries, the boats in the harbor, the trucks on the freeway, or the aircraft who cause the problem. I think our obligation is to make sure that we don't let the problem get worse.

Because one of the things that didn't come up in the conversation here is that the kids in Long Beach go to school everywhere in Long Beach. They can live in east Long Beach and they go to a westside school, and vice versa, and we need to remember that. This is no longer a district issue. This is an issue, because of us busing kids all around the city, this is just a quality of life issue and the safety issue, and I think this is a really good start on it...
...

I think that you have heard that the Council in item 17 [request for the report] is pretty much in concurrence on the ask for a report on the impact on the quality of life, and on 27 and 28 [the resolutions] also limiting the flights to 41, and on 28 to use this as a resolution for lobbying efforts in Washington.

So I'm going to ask the people that are going to speak to speak on all of them at once. We will take them in three separate items but I'd like to start with Curt Castagna to speak first, and just know that if you're trying to talk people into it, they're already talked into it. OK.

Thank you for allowing me to address you tonight. This month is actually the 7th anniversary of your Council's prudent decision to settle the 12 years of litigation and securing control of the airport. Previously, I sent you some communication in support of that effort and I will just read briefly...

The Airport Area Business Council, a Chamber of Commerce Committee, actually is made up of many of [LB's] good corporate citizens...and we hope to continue our effort to work with Council and staff and try to maintain the balance that you spoke of.

I'm here tonight to ask you to uphold the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance and the current airline flight slot limitations. We offer you support and any help that we can do as resources to continue that effort.

The City of LB has a very unique airport in a region that it's proud and serves adequately a mix of facets of aviation including manufacturing, commercial airlines, corporate and business aviation and light private general aviation, and our airport is home to over 200 businesses, providing that significant impact that you spoke of, and we understand the sensitivity of operating in the balance.

And we believe that the ordinance that you have in place provides security and local control...and some of the considerations, studying additional EIR measures or other possible actions by your Council, we would only be concerned about if it took that local control away from you...

...I'm speaking on behalf of my company, Production Magic, Inc...As a licensed, home based business operator, I wish to respectfully request that the city consider initiating an Environmental Impact Report with regard to the Long Beach airport and the related daily flights.

...Our house was built in 1947, one of the first on the block, and since 1949 it has been the Bannister home in which [husband] Reggie grew up. It is not simply a matter of merely being able to discard 51 years of family memories when in fact the Airport has changed so dramatically in that time...

...We respectfully request that an Environmental Impact Report be conducted to determine the current impact of flights upon businesses and residents in the existing flight path and that the EIR should include, and not be limited to, air quality, noise level and duration of said levels, particulate fallout from aircraft contrails, noise occurrences which is the intervals of the flights, and soil and surface sampling testing.

Special thanks to the four of you who brought these items forward, and thanks and applause to the rest of you, I guess it's going to pass unanimously.

I'd like to see you do a fullblown EIR as quickly as you can, realizing there are budgetary constraints and this is a good start what you've asked for tonight, Dennis.

Regarding agenda item 27 [resolution affirming support for LB Airport noise compatibility ordinance], I give you some written information suggesting you delete reference to anything to do with SCAG [Southern California Association of Governments]...The [SCAG] information is now dated, that was done before the El Toro vote, I don't think you want to yield any of your authority to SCAG. In fact, now turning to agenda item 28 [supporting city lobbying efforts], what you need to do is not only protect and uphold your current noise compatibility ordinance, you want to maximize local control. You don't want to just protect words on paper, you want to protect real people. You want to protect kids. You want to protect senior citizens.

Toward that end, I have given you in writing three additional "whereases." Defending your ordinance is necessary but it's not sufficient to mount a winning argument in my opinion in DC...

And if you'll look at the backup material that I have given you that's titled "EPA Environmental Justice links," you might be surprised to find that President Clinton issued an Executive Order talking about Environmental Justice which lo and behold, surprising to me, was recently validated and upheld by the Bush administration...