Council Votes 6-0 (Uranga, Gonzalez, Richardson Absent) To Seek Airport Mgm't Report w/in 45 Days On Process Involved, Potential Scope, and Pros/Cons of Development at LB Airport Master Plan; Airport Director Romo Cautions That Such Plans Traditionally Discuss Capacity And As Such Could Elevate Risk To LB Airport Flight Limits; Councilmembers Austin, Supernaw And Mungo Indicate Importance Of Protecting Airport Ordinance
LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
Remember: the HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASS'N PAC ENDORSES DR. MARTHA FLORES GIBSON for Assembly. (And the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n gave Sac'to incumbent O'Donnell an "F" on its 2016 Legislative Report card.)
JOIN YOUR NEIGHBORS in voting for MARTHA FLORES GIBSON for Assembly: Learn more on MARTHA's FACEBOOK PAGE at this link and at www.MarthaFloresGibson.com Paid for by Martha Flores Gibson for Assembly 2016 (Dist.70) State ID # 1387345
(November 3, 2016, 3:05 p.m.) -- As seen LIVE on LBREPORT.com, the City Council voted 6-0 (co-author Uranga exits early, Richardson and Gonzalez in China) to request a report from Airport management within 45 days on the process involved, potential scope and pros and cons of developing a long-range Master Plan for LB Airport.
The Nov. 1 Council action stemmed from an item agendized by Councilmembers Austin, Uranga and Supernaw (using the short-notice procedure that reduced time for the public, and Councilmembers, to review the proposal) that was nearly identical to an item agendized for Feb. 16, 2016 by Austin, Price and Richardson but withdrawn before it was discussed.
The Nov. 1 item contained no timeline, but in making his motion Councilman Austin added a 30 period for Airport management to provide the requested report to the Council. Austin's motion left unclear whether the report will return at a Council meeting (where the public can see it) or whether management will give it to Councilmembers as a "to-for-from" memo (a non-transparent technique that doesn't reach the public without a public records request.)
Councilwoman Mungo initially made a motion to "receive and file" (take no action) on the item, stating that she had learned during her term of office, especially in discussions with neighborhood associations, "that our number one priority is protecting the noise ordinance" and asked Airport Director Jess Romo to discuss his experience with Master Plans elsewhere and that this action "would actually be a greater threat to our noise ordinance than anything else" and specifically asked Airport Director Romo "to speak to whether or not you personally believe we would be at greater risk should we pursue a Master Plan."
[Scroll down for further.]
Airport Director Romo replied and a Council colloquy followed:
Airport Director Romo: ...[C]omprehensive Master Plans by definition are either when you are planning to develop an airport, or if you've got an airport where you are contemplating adding capacity, those would be the primary times that you would want to do a full blown Master Plan. So in that regard, if you're wanting to explore the ten elements that make up a Master Plan, including airport capacity, in my opinion, that does elevate the level of risk, I'd probably defer to the City Attorney on what that amount might be, but I think that it is fair to say that you would be elevating the risk."
Councilwoman Mungo: I know that I stand with some of my colleagues in that the number one priority is not to expand aviation at the airport but to maintain the balance that we have today and the quality of life that we have for our neighbors...I know that while there have been discussions of distribution of those flights across other runways that's not something that I'm interested in exploring. I think that we've done a lot of research-related to the pavement and the investments that have been put in by both the federal government and others that have put the airport in a position where we're in a position to protect the noise ordinance...and so at this time, in an effort to protect our neighbors and ensure that we do not increase the risk to the noise ordinance, I would like to receive and file. I have shared with my colleagues, including Councilmember Austin, my intend for a more broad eastside plan that could consider transportation and all the other components that allow for economic development without expansion of flights...
Advertisement
Advertisement
Councilwoman Mungo also noted that the item was placed [by its co-agendizers] on the Council's "short notice" agenda [4 days notice instead of the usual 8] and added: "I wished that a partnership could have been formed to move forward on this from a more holistic approach...I would look forward to the opportunity to partner...but I am not ready to take this on at this time because of the additional risk and until we have some clear scoping on what we would want the city to bring back to us...so I'm open to what Councilmember Austin proposed if it had a scope that I think maybe we could discuss or get some feedback from the Airport Advisory Commission on what that scope would look like...So I hope my colleagues will support a "receive and file" It doesn't need to come back in 30 days but we could revive a new, and completely different item that has all the proper elements when the time is right."Councilman Austin replied that Councilwoman Mungo's statements didn't accurately reflect his intentions, and he restated his motion ("to request that the City Manager report back to the Council within 30 days on the process involved, potential scope and pros and cons of developing a long range Master Plan for LB Airport") and stated that his motion "in no way puts our Airport noise ordinance in jeopardy and that is absolutely the last thing that is on my agenda or that I would want to do as I live under the flight path and represent thousands of residents who also live under the flight path of Long Beach Airport." Councilman Austin added that he would have included Councilwoman Mungo in the item but she had been absent for three weeks in a row and so he didn't have an opportunity to have conversation with her during that time.
Councilman Austin said the Airport is a citywide resource, likening the Council's decision to its vote to build a new Civic Center [that he erroneously said required nine votes when it only required five.] "This is not a 5th district asset. I want to be very clear on that," Councilman Austin said. "Again, the intent here is to help us articulate a vision, and more importantly bring all the stakeholders to the table, including the community..." He continued:
Councilman Austin: Nobody knows what to expect because we don't have a long-range plan. We don't have a long range vision. We do have a noise ordinance, which is very important, and I think is the Holy Grail, and I think if we were to pursue a Master Plan that should be on the first page...in terms of our intention in this City...I can tell you that I would not be in favor of any sort of Master Plan that would seek to expand flight capacity at Long Beach Airport because that too would be counter to our noise ordinance...[S]hould we go that route, I can imagine that since everybody here says that they support our noise ordinance, I wouldn't imagine anybody would do anything to suggest we should expand our capacity or jeopardize the noise ordinance...
Councilman Supernaw supported Councilman Austin, stating, "[This motion] is not going to a Master Plan. It's asking for a report back from city staff," adding that the agenda item was rushed, "so I think all we're saying is...let's get a more thorough report back to see the merits of this, and maybe we're hung up on the terminology of a master plan, maybe it's some type of a hybrid that we need moving forward."
Advertisement
Advertisement
Councilwoman Mungo asked Austin if he'd agree to receiving a report in 60 days instead of 30 days, explaining her reasoning as follows:
Councilwoman Mungo: The specific question that was asked was whether or not it would create a greater risk, and our Airport has already stated that it has, and so if we're going to do something bigger and greater than that, there's a lot on our plate on the eastside and a lot of other report-backs that are coming within the next 30 days that I think are crucial, specifically related to two of the items that Councilmember Gonzalez and I brought forward that I think can create an impact on the overall plan of eastside, and I understand that part of the question is whether or not it hurts the noise ordinance, but I think that he's clearly stated that, and so for a more comprehensive report I would like to have those two other reports back, and if that was possible that they could be considered, then I think that would get us up to 45 or 60 days.
Councilwoman Mungo asked Councilman Austin if the report would come back to the full Council or as a "to-from-for" memo only for Councilmembers (unless a member of the public makes a Public Records Act request.) Councilman Austin said his motion allowed for the report "to come either way." Austin noted that Airport Director Romo had said that creating increased air capacity would create significant risk, and asked Mr. Romo directly: "Does building infrastructure capacity at our Airport expose us to risk as well?" and emphasized that by infrastructure he means a terminal or terminals.
Airport Director Romo replied: "I think anytime you are looking at changes there's always going to be some risks that will come up...I think that anytime there's a change, as a City you have manage that and acknowledge that there is risk there. There's risk there if we do nothing."
Councilman Austin replied that he'd accept 45 days for an Airport management report under his motion. Councilwoman Mungo agreed to this. [That timeline would put an Airport Director's report on a Master Plan returning to Councilmembers [not necessarily to the public] in mid-December.]
"OK, that's good," commented Mayor Garcia and invited public testimony.
Advertisement
Advertisement
First to speak was retired 8th dist. Councilwoman Rae Gabelich (2004-2012), who indicated that she'd spoken with two [former] area Airport managers. One of them said that LB's Airport Ordinance IS effectively LB Airport's Master Plan, and said doing a Master Plan would invite regional, state and federal attention, including capacity...at a time when an environmental justice lawsuit is proceeding against LAX in which an issue is why aren't LB and OC Airport taking more flights. Gabelich said another [former] Airport manager said that an FIS [customs facility /international flights] facility would have to be part of a Master Plan...and indicated that she agrees with this.
In their agendizing memo, Councilman Austin, joined by Councilmembers Supernaw and Uranga, wrote "The master plan will help produce plans, policies and mitigation programs that would provide an appropriate balance between the community, passenger, environmental and economic interests. Without an articulated long-range vision, the Airport is subject to external pressures to pursue certain development objectives and opens itself up to suspicion and mistrust among certain airport stakeholders, including impacted communities. The elements of a master plan typically include: pre-planning; public involvement; environmental considerations; existing conditions; aviation forecasts; facility requirements; alternatives development and evaluation; airport layout plans; facilities implementation plan; and financial feasibility analysis. The LGB Master Plan would not only look at the terminal and airfield, but also develop a long-range outlook for the other business uses at the Airport."
Laurie Smith (from Council district 3) raised the issue of possible impacts from NextGen (FAA's new GPS based air traffic control system), citing former LB Airport Director Francis' letter to the FAA regarding his concerns about its possible affects on residents near LB Airport. (The FAA is scheduled to implement NextGen in three phases: Nov. 10, 2016, March 1, 2017 and April 27, 2017.) "Within that time, the city government, which manages the Airport, has allowed us to move forward with 9 supplement slots and now a Feasibility Study, and it seems to be that this all wants to be done before the FAA Metroplex [NextGen] comes down on the residents, and it's a little concerning that seems to be what city government has been looking to do, is push this through before we all get impacted by heavy noise impacts."
In their agendizing memo the three agendizers wrote:
Most airports, whether they are large commercial airports or small general aviation airports,
have airport master plans.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) describes the goal of a master plan as providing "guidelines for future airport development which will satisfy aviation demand in a financially feasible manner, while at the same time, resolving the aviation, environmental and socioeconomic issues existing in the community."
Of the 15 largest airports in California, Long Beach Airport (LGB) is the only one without a master plan. As a result, there is no public document outlining the City's vision for the airport, that is arrived at through a collaborative process with the community, airport stakeholders, Airport Advisory Commission and City officials.
The master plan will help produce plans, policies and mitigation programs that would provide an appropriate balance between the community, passenger, environmental and economic interests. Without an articulated long-range vision, the Airport is subject to external pressures to pursue certain development objectives and opens itself up to suspicion and mistrust among certain airport stakeholders, including impacted communities.
The elements of a master plan typically include: pre-planning; public involvement; environmental considerations; existing conditions; aviation forecasts; facility requirements; alternatives development and evaluation; airport layout plans; facilities implementation plan;
and financial feasibility analysis. The LGB Master Plan would not only look at the terminal and airfield, but also develop a long-range outlook for the other business uses at the Airport.
The Feb. 16, 2016 Master Plan agenda item was originally agendized by Austin (joined by Price and Richardson), but then withdrawn before it was discussed...six days before JetBlue publicly requested that the City seek federal approval for a customs facility that would enable international flights.
The Nov. 1 Master Plan agenda item (Austin, Supernaw, Uranga) was scheduled and approved (with a 45 day period for an Airport management response) two weeks before the Nov. 15 Council meeting when (Airport management has previously indicated) that a consulting firm's Feasibility Study and accompanying City Attorney opinion (released publicly Oct 4, LBREPORT.com coverage with links here.) will be scheduled for Council discussion. At that time, the Council may or may not take voted action -- depending on whether one Councilmember makes a motion and gets a second -- that could direct City management to advance the process to allow a customs facility/international flights.
Internal documents obtained and published by LBREPORT.com in mid-2014 show that LB Airport management and staff worked with JetBlue reps through much of 2013 to explore the process for a customs facility / international flights for possible Council approval; Airport management informed Councilmembers of the actions via memos in August and November 2013, but no Councilmembers (who included now-Mayor Garcia and Councilmembers Austin and Andrews and former Councilwoman Schipske) disclosed the actions to the public entering the 2014 election cycle.
