(May 6, 2006) -- Contradicting assurances by LB officials and Airport-boosters, Chapman University School of Law Professor John Eastman, speaking as a LB homeowner, has warned that if LB City Hall expands its Airport's permanent terminal area facilities to the 102,000 square foot "preferred" level justified by a city management Environmental Impact Report, it will invite more flights and loss of LB's Noise Compatibility Ordinance which contains the noise-budgeted flight limits now protecting LB neighborhoods.

In sworn testimony to the Long Beach Planning Commission at a May 4 public hearing on the EIR, Prof. Eastman said, "Who are we trying to kid here? You build a place that's three times as large, that noise ordinance is not going to last for ten minutes...If you build the capacity, we're going to be required to fill that capacity."

Given three minutes to speak (with other members of the public) after a presentation by City Hall staff and its paid EIR consultant that lasted over 90 minutes, Professor Eastman testified:

"I asked that the EIR consider how large a capacity on flights and passengers the new increased buildings would support, and then run an environmental impact on that capacity. They declined to do so, claiming that they didn't need to because the noise ordinance prevented us from going above that capacity. That means the Environmental Impact Report has not answered the critical question about the impact to the people who live near that Airport.

Screen save: LBTV 8

"And it's a joke to pretend that you're going to triple the size of the facility and not have to increase the capacity, and that that increased capacity won't cause environmental impacts that are not addressed at all in this study."

Prof. Eastman, an acknowledged expert on federal/state issues, recently represented a central LB church that successfully brushed back an early eminent domain move by LB's Redevelopment Agency. He has also represented the LB Area Chamber of Commerce in its thus far successful federal court lawsuit challenging LB's political campaign contribution limits as applied to independent [non-candidate controlled] political committees.

Prof. Eastman testified in his individual capacity [not as a Chamber legal rep] after statements in support of the EIR by (among others) Mark Bixby, who testified as a spokesman for the "Long Beach Alliance," and Matt Kinley, the Chamber's Vice Chair for public policy.

When Mr. Bixby introduced himself, Planning Commission Chair Matthew Jenkins asked him to spell his last name, arguably the most famous family name in LB. "B-I-X-B-Y," Mr. Bixby replied and proceeded to testify. "I am here as a spokesperson for the Long Beach Alliance, a group of more than a thousand people who support enhancements to the Airport passenger terminal facilities for the entire city of Long Beach."

Mr. Bixby continued, "The forecast growth within the Noise Compatibility Ordinance will occur with or without the proposed project. Doing nothing imposes growing safety, security and environmental burdens...Limiting the number of parking pads to anything less than 14 will create an artificial stranglehold at peak arrival times which will increase jet idling and create unnecessary emissions and inconvenience passengers waiting to disembark and embark on planes. Certifying the EIR does not commit the city to a project size, as you're aware," he said.

Speaking from notes while gesturing theatrically to enumerate a list of EIR supporters, Mr. Bixby said,

Screen save: LBTV 8

"The Alliance joins with the Airport Advisory Commission, the City of Long Beach Planning Department, the Press-Telegram, the Long Beach Business Journal, the Gazette papers, the Beachcomber, the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Long Beach Associates, the Workforce Development Task Force, the Economic Development Commission in supporting the proposed terminal improvements in this EIR."

Chamber VP Kinley testified, "The Chamber supports the Noise Compatibility Ordinance. That Ordinance is what regulates the number of flights. Not the facility. Not the improvements for the facility for the comfort of the passengers. And we believe that the Environmental Impact Report correctly points that out. The temporary facilities that are there currently hurts our city. It is our first impression of passengers coming to the city. If it were improved, the business climate would improve by improving the general and the overall flavor of the city."

Speaking for the Long Beach Airport Association, Candace Robinson testified, "Any link between more flights and this terminal improvement project is simply not there. The commercial flight activity at Long Beach Airport was limited by ordinance in 1995. This project is designed only to accommodate the passenger levels which will occur as a result of flight activity within the bounds of the ordinance...[It] will still be on the small side to handle over four million annual passengers to use the Airport in the near future. In fact, of 16 comparable Airports in the United States in terms of passenger counts, ranging from Buffalo, New York [to] Tucson, Arizona, the square footage you are being asked to approve today is only 1/4 to 1/3 the size of all those 16 airports. Perhaps then we should be talking about something larger but nevertheless, 102,850 square feet is before you today. Also of note, the Long Beach project calls for a maximum of 12-14 aircraft parking positions. Even Colorado Springs, the smallest of the comparable airports in terms of passengers, only about two million a year with 280,000 square feet of terminal space, has 16 parking positions for airline jets."

Without mentioning Messrs. Bixby and Kinley or Ms. Robinson by name, Professor Eastman took aim at the premises underpinning their arguments. Warning of the risks of comparing LB to airports in smaller markets [as testimony by Alliance spokesman Bixby and Airport Ass'n spokesperson Robinson did], Professor Eastman said, "This is not Colorado Springs. We are not at the maximum level of capacity that the market will bear here. We are artificially constraining that capacity in that Airport because we want the quality of life that will flow."

Prof. Eastman concluded, "The only thing that we have to constrain that capacity, and to make life livable for the people that live in that flight path, is the size of that Airport. So modernize but don't supersize that facility, which is what you're proposing to do."

Prof. Eastman's testimony went unreported in the Press-Telegram's May 5 report of the Planning Commission's proceedings.

Don May, who heads the environmental group California Earth Corps, opened his testimony to the Planning Commission in stark terms. "You guys determine land use in the city, and the adverse impacts, the environmental insult to the community particularly from air quality, comes as a result of land use decisions. And a lot of the land use decisions of your predecessors have given us what we are today: the second worst air quality of any city in the United States, second only to Wilmington."

Mr. May said his group's high-tech effort to monitor real-time aircraft pollutants proved unable to separate pollution caused by Port and other sources. Mr. May recommended, "As you handled the noise problem with a 'noise bucket,' you need to look at a 'pollution bucket' from the Airport. This is proposed for the Ports. Indeed, [State Senator] Lowenthal's bill for 'no net increase' [in port-related pollution] is widely looked at now as inadequate...What is needed is to monitor the air quality so that you can determine what comes from the Airport. I do hope that you will [put in] as a condition continuing air quality monitoring so we can form the basis for a 'pollution bucket' that will really determine and abate eventually the health risk to the community."

The May 4th Planning Commission hearing was videotaped and will be replayed on City Hall's cable TV channel (LBTV 8) following replays of the previous City Council meeting.

Phyllis Ortman, who is president of the Lakewood Village Neighborhood Association "although today I'm here to speak on behalf of the preponderance of the residents that live in that neighborhood," also testified, supporting moving ahead with the Airport project.

A representative of the LB Unified School District testified that the EIR failed to examine noise impacts on schoolchildren that would result if the total number of flights possible under the noise ordinance were reached. Planning Commissioner Greenberg replied that this would occur whether or not the Airport's permanent terminal facilities were expanded.

A May 11 evening meeting of the Planning Commission has been specially scheduled to allow additional public input on the proposed expansion of the Airport's permanent terminal area facilities. It will take place in the LB City Council Chambers at City Hall (333 W. Ocean Blvd.) starting at 6 p.m. and will be telecast live on cable channel 8 and webcast on City Hall's website (www.longbeach.gov).

Our transcript of some salient speakers at the May 4th hearing (below) is unofficial, prepared by us.