Recommendation to adopt resolution amending Resolution No. C-28465 with respect to the utilization of flight slots allocated at the Long Beach Airport and related administrative amendments to the Resolution, in accordance with the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance set forth in Chapter 16.43 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.  (Citywide)
Great. Thank you very much. Next up is item 17. Item 17 is a report from Long Beach Airport. Recommendation to adopt resolution amending resolution number C, dash 28465 with respect to the utilizations of flight slots allocated at the Long Beach airport citywide. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. West. Mr. Mayor, council members, this is an item that we've been debating for quite some time regarding how our slots allocations are flown at the Long Beach airport, especially with all of the new additions and improvements that we've made there. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to our executive director of the airport, Jess Romo, who will walk us through the proposed resolution Jess. Thank you, Mr. West, honorable mayor, vice mayor and members of Council. As Mr. was said, this has been a long and thoughtful process. And so tonight here, this culminates with a request for the city council to consider and look at proposed flight allocation resolution amendments. I'm sure you all had an opportunity to take a look at the very lengthy staff report. We want to make sure that all issues were covered. But this slide deck here really synthesizes it and summarizes it so that we could go through and look at the highlights of this project, as well as entertain any questions that you may have. So just to to cue this up, this slide deck here really is going to cover historical and legal context associated with the noise ordinance and flight allocation resolution. It will also speak to the current flight allocation resolution that's in place, as well as a summary of the proposed amendments. We also include data regarding average daily flight utilization on a monthly basis so that you can get a snapshot of what we've seen take place since January 1st of this year, including some projections that will take us into spring of next year. And then finally, we're going to cover the rationale that really is behind the proposed amendments to the resolution. So with that, in as most people who've been within the city for any length of time, you'll realize that this has been a very long process and very storied. Ordinance and allocation resolution there really they both support each other going back to 1981, which is when the first noise ordinance was enacted. And over a period of 14 years, there were steps along the way that included litigation, legal challenges, federal district court decisions, and finally culminating with a final judgment that allowed the city to adopt its current noise ordinance and companion flight plan allocation resolution. We want to make sure that members of the public, as well as the council and mayor are aware that, you know, there are two components to or noise restrictions here within the city. There is the noise ordinance and its implementing resolution. So as it's shows on the slide deck here, both documents balance the community needs for, you know, reasonable air service at the airport, along with environmental interest of the communities that are located within the city, within the vicinity of the airport. And secondly, what we're here for tonight is to look at the flight allocation resolution, and that really is what provides what we call the implementing flight allocation regulations that are consistent with the noise ordinance provisions. And just a little bit of background. You know, Long Beach Airport, along with a very small handful of airports in the nation in a fit of fairly strict noise regulations. And that's that's in part in large part because these regulations were initiated or put in place before the federal legislation, which has referred to the Airport Noise and Capacity Act or in shorthand referred to as anchor, which really now restricts airports from being able to set limits on certain limits at airports, especially those that would otherwise interfere with aircraft operations or those that would affect aircraft safety. So short of that, airports are allowed to do that, but it is a very difficult road to go down and to be successful at. So in that regard, Long Beach has the benefit of a noise ordinance and set of regulations that allow us to to manage that that balance of aircrafts or airline service and aircraft activity against the environmental needs of the community. These amendments, any amendments that we would make either to the noise ordinance or the allocation resolution, they have to be consistent with the City of Long Beach's sponsor, assurances that we have in other covenants that obligations that we have with the FAA. And finally, these amendments, they cannot or any application for federal grant funding, which is very critical for the airport in terms of keeping the airport operational areas safe and operational, or our ability to impose federal passenger facility charges or Pepsis, which is another funding mechanism that most airports rely on. The noise ordinance. As I said earlier, it is so, you know, we're one of the very few airports that enjoys this protection in it is unique as most of the noise restrictions that airports do have that are pre anchor. And because of that it's it's got to be protected. So staff has always been mindful and will continue to be mindful that it's a balance. But protecting the ordinance is one of our paramount duties. So we have or the noise compatibility ordinance, which is under, you know, the Chapter 16.43 and that is not being amended. So I wanted to make sure that was real clear. So people in the community had concerns about not touching the ordinance. So this action tonight does nothing with the noise ordinance itself. We know that the ordinance has been hard fought. It is one of the strictest in the nation. And again, instead, what we are looking at is amendments to the resolution, which is an enabling document that helps us protect and really show how we will enable airlines to maximize the capacity that does exist at the airport. So in particular, the flight allocation procedure procedure resolution, which is in place right now, was adopted back in 2004. It is worth noting that this is not the first or the second or third amendment of the allocation resolution. It's actually been amended six times to date, although the most recent one was in 2004. And again, it really supplements and buttresses the noise ordinance that your get provides that implementing allocation procedures that are in line and consistent with the noise ordinance. The resolution in particular addresses allocation, preference by air carriers, flight slot allocation process, the steps that are needed anytime an aircraft or an airline wants to secure flight slots. The minimum use requirements, which would be a key part of what we'll discuss here tonight, as well as a process to have the airport reserve and reallocate unused portions of flight slots. So a very high level summary of the amendments that are before you tonight is that what we're looking at is to have increased slot utilization of the slots that are awarded to the various air carriers. We'll get into the specifics of where they are today and where we would like to take them. It also revises certain definitions of flight slots and ferry operations is actually to help provide flexibility to the carriers and ferry operations, for example, or any time an aircraft needs to be repositioned. It's not a revenue flight, doesn't have passengers. It could be an equipment issue. But we want to make sure that that is clarified so that it gives more flexibility to the carriers, as well as a number of administrative amendments. And that is in part to help modernize the document itself as things have changed and references, you know, that that didn't exist back in the last time this was amended back in 2004. So this is a side by side. And we actually used this table when we held the community meetings earlier this year. So if you look on the left, this really speaks to the current minimum slot use requirements that are in place now under this resolution. And in short, really what it requires is for each slot that an airline has that they have to fly a minimum of four times per week, over a 180 day period. That equates to about 57% minimum utilization. So as long as they fly it on average over 180 days, you know, four times a week or 57%, they get to keep that slot on. The converse of that is that, you know, 43% could go unused if they choose not to fly that. There is another way that we look at that on a monthly basis or on a by monthly basis where they have to fly 30 flights in a 60 day period, which is 50% of that of that slot that's allocated on the right. We're looking at what we are proposing and what we're looking at is a stepped up requirement that really reflects a balance of working with carriers, understanding that schedules do change. But with that backstop of if you're going to have a slot, you should use it much more efficiently. So if you see they're on a monthly basis, what we're proposing to require is a 60% utilization, which is about 4 to 4 days out of the week. And on a quarterly basis, 70%, which is about five days out of the week. And then on an annual basis, 85%, which is about six days out of the week in order to maintain that slot. And this is the graph that I alluded to in the introduction. And really this is to help give everyone a picture of starting in January of this year. And obviously, we have data through October. And I'll just walk you through it real briefly that those months and those bars represent utilization. And if you look down below, really the blue represents the flights I'm sorry, the flight slots that were flown during that period of time. And you can see that for the first eight months, January through August, every every slot for the most part was flown very you see, very little in and probably no yellow. The as you move further on, we've got two months now that we've been able to see that since since September through and into October there has been a reduction in the use of the of the actual slots that are awarded either permanent or supplemental so that that green space. So the green and the yellow space represent that capacity that is available and the green of that represents what was actually flown. So the yellow across the board represents the UN flown capacity that's available but not being used by any carrier. Now of course, we are projecting and forecasting, you know, going forward, which is all we can do based on schedules that have been loaded. But if unless things change, this is what we're looking at in terms of a flight profile through March of next year. And again, if we don't change the allocation resolution, there would be no incentive for carriers to change behavior. So the main rationale behind proposing amendments are that it ensures that air carriers are adequately utilizing their flight slots. It also reduces the potential for anti-competitive conduct by certain air carriers. It promotes an airport operation on a fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination, which is in accordance with FAA regulations. It also reinforces the proposition that our flight slots, they are not property rights or property interest of the carriers, but they in fact belong to the city to be allocated based on a reasonable use by the air carriers. The adoption of administrative penalty provisions, including the reduction of flight slots where there is underutilization under utilization, that is parcel part of the proposed amendments. Before you tonight. Again. The action tonight does not change the ordinance at all. The noise ordinance is not before you for any type of amendment at this point. It also does not change the structure for administrative violations that occur during the non permitted hours, which means that the fines structure for violations does not change because that's part of the noise ordinance, nor do the the daughters, the fine structure for consent decree violations that occur after 11 p.m. and before 7 a.m. again. Those are all those are part of a separate agreements with the city prosecutor. That's not up for discussion tonight, nor are we considering the number of permitted slots it is. There are 41 permitted slots that are permitted currently. And, you know, obviously right now we've got nine supplemental slots. That's not under consideration tonight. And then lastly, this does not in any way affect the flight profile of Long Beach Airport. Basically, the air carriers, so all the carrier, all the routes are and would remain domestic routes into and out of Long Beach. And as a reminder, we were very careful and thoughtful to make sure that we did a lot of outreach. So our outreach really in three tranches, you know, included outreach to the air carriers and the FAA. You know, you'll see the dates on there. We did it twice in 2017. We've done it three times in 2018. We had two community meetings earlier this year, back in January and February, where we presented this information and accepted comments by attendees as well as any written comments that the public wanted to submit at any time this this calendar year. And then, of course, the stakeholder responses really were based on the what the carriers, for the most part, and really the carrier responses were limited to Southwest and JetBlue. And those are part of your package. So tonight we are recommending that you consider adopting the resolution, the resolution of 28465, that would increase minimum flight slot utilization requirements and other administrative amendments. And with that, we're here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Romo. Very thorough presentation. I know a lot of work went into this. I appreciate that. Before I get to the council and Councilwoman Mongo, any public comment on this? Seeing no public comment or close public comment? Councilwoman Mongo. I think and appreciate our airport staff. I think that you guys did an excellent job at the community meetings, and I think that that is why the community has been so supportive of this. I think that you guys have been great and I think you did all your research. And for that reason, I'm supportive. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I, too, am supportive. Also want to thank our airport director and staff at the airport. They have gone through a very process oriented, detailed, methodical process to get get us to this point. The community outreach efforts, the updates to the Airport Advisory Commission and frequent briefings with the council, I think has been very, very helpful. I don't have really any questions about this. I think this is a a no brainer. I see this as a clean up effort and right sizing of our slot allocation resolution in an effort to maximize efficient use of flight start slots at Long Beach Airport. And it's also consistent hearing from our airport director that this resolution has been amended six times in the last couple decades. And it makes a lot of sense to us, for us to to look at how this flight allocation process benefits the airport and puts the airport in in the in the driver's seat. And so I am completely supportive of this this item, and I'm glad to see it before us. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I also wanted to thank staff. I think when I first got on council, I didn't know that we would get to this place. And so I'm really proud of staff the direction and the council members who the airport directly impacts. I often think of the airport as an asset for my district because we have tourism in my district. But knowing that that we've come this far, I think not having public comment is one of the few times I will say it shows how far we've come. This is the least amount of people I've seen in this room whenever we've talked about the airport. So for that, I applaud staff for hard work and really taking your time to get it right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Super now. Thank you. I'd also like to commend staff for those of those of us who work with this on a daily basis. It's pretty simple. But if you don't, it's very, very complicated. And I think you did a great job, especially the PowerPoint here today, to make a complex issue, very simple and understandable. So thank you again. Thank you, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Barry. And I won't add my voice to the congratulatory comments that we made to the staff. You came in within two. Years, have made a quick evaluation. And see that we can do a lot better with our. With our flights. And I'm very pleased that it's going to make our airport that much more efficient and helpful for the community. So thank you for the working to. Put into this. Thank you very much. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Great. Thank you and excellent job by the team at the airport as well. So thank you very much, the whole team. Moving on to item number 18.