The agenda item, added to the Nov. 1 Council agenda via an Oct. 28 request by the three co-agendizers, says nothing about delaying a Council vote on whether to seek a federal customs facility that would enable international flights. A Council vote on a customs facility/international flights could occur regardless of Council action on the "Master Plan" agenda item if a Councilmember were to make such a motion, and receives a second, when a consultant-prepared "Feasibility Study" and city attorney opinion memo on the customs facility/international flights return to the City Council.

[Scroll down for further.]

Airport management has previously indicated publicly that the Feasibility Study and city attorney memo are expected to come to the Council on November 15, but left open whether there would be a Council vote at that time (which ultimately depends on the voted will of a Council majority.) However in his Oct. 28 weekly e-newsletter, Councilman Supernaw told his constituents "At this point, there is no set date for when the item will come before city council."

Advertisement

Advertisement

The reasoning behind the Nov. 1 Airport "Master Plan" agenda item -- proposed by the three Councilmembers who voted in July 2015 against starting a Feasibility Study on a customs facility after voicing concerns that international flights could arguably increase the risk of a challenge to LB's protective Airport ordinance -- has left some veteran Airport observers puzzled...and alarmed.

In their agendizing memo the three agendizers write:

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.

Advertisement

Advertisement

But two individuals with an expertise on Airport matters [not LBHUSH2 or Neighborhoods First activists], speaking for background without attribution, separately voiced concerns to LBREPORT.com that opening the door to an Airport "Master Plan" could lead to discussion of plans for growth, including expanding LB Airport's physical facilities and adding Airport flights. The observers indicated that creating an Airport "Master Plan" could enable interests outside LB to argue that LB Airport is operating below its potential "capacity" while the "region" (meaning areas outside LB in LA, OC and beyond) supposedly needs additional flights to handle "regional needs."

One observer commented that LB Airport already has a de facto "Master Plan" -- the City's protective Airport ordinance -- which caps flights based on collective aircraft noise and includes a late night/early morning curfew.

The Councilmembers' Nov. 1, 2016 agenda item is nearly identical to a Feb. 16, 2016 agenda item brought by Councilman Austin, joined at that time by Councilmembers Supernaw, Price and (now Vice Mayor) Richardson, that was withdrawn without explanation before it was discussed. This invites the conclusion that if nothing else has changed, there may be five Council votes to pursue a Master Plan (current three co-agendizers Austin, Supernaw and Uranga + 2 previous co-agendizers Price and Richardson.)

On Feb. 22, 2016, just days after the original Master Plan agenda item was withdrawn, JetBlue publicly requested that the City seek federal approval for a customs facility allowing international flights at LGB.

Advertisement

Advertisement

As first reported by LBREPORT.com in 2014, internal Airport documents obtained by LBREPORT.com show that Airport management worked alongside JetBlue representatives, without publicly voted Council approval through much of 2013, to explore ways to enable a customs facility and international flights. Airport management informed the Council of its activities in two summary memos (August 2013 and November 2013) but no then-incumbents -- including then-Vice Mayor (now Mayor) Garcia or Councilmembers Schipske, Austin or Andrews) disclosed this to the public entering the 2014 election cycle (when Garcia and Schipske were running for Mayor.)

Councilman Austin sought and won re-election in LB's 8th Council district (Cal Hts, Bixby Knolls, southern NLB) in April 2016 against two opponents without the endorsement of immediate-past Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, who'd endorsed him in 2012. Andrews (Central LB) won re-election in April 2016 in a third-term write-in in which his campaign contributors included JetBlue. Supernaw, elected to the Council in an April 2015 "winner take all" special election to fill the unexpired term of 4th dist. Councilman (now Assemblyman) O'Donnell, had no ballot competition in seeking a full four year term 2016.

None of the three Master Plan-agendizing Councilmembers have scheduled meetings in their Council districts to discuss the consultant-prepared Feasibility Study or the city attorney memo. City management scheduled the items for Oct. 20 discussion at the Airport Advisory Commission and the Oct. 25 discussion at LB's Economic Development Commission, which are advisory bodies and took no voted advisory actions. The chairs of both bodies announced at the opening of their meetings that public questions to the consultant with real-time answers wouldn't be in order (although the Council voted on Oct. 11 to pay the consultant firm an additional roughly $20,000 from Airport funds beyond the firm's $347,000 Feasibility Study fee to discuss the document at the two meetings.) However the Airport Advisory Commission voted to allow such public questions with real-time answers near the end of its meeting (although most of the audience had left.) Airport management indicated at both meetings that the public's questions would be transcribed by a court reporter and would receive answers in writing from Airport/city staff after the meetings.