Recommendation to request City Manager to have the Long Beach Airport Director work with the Airport Advisory Commission, community members and airport stakeholders to develop a long-range master plan for the Long Beach Airport.
Okay. Thank you. Next item we're going to hear is item number. I think it was 18. No, I'm sorry. We just heard 18. 27. Thank you. As we're getting up to the urban common guys, we're back there. I just want to thank you all for your commitment to this project. We look forward to being really strong partners over the next few years and many years ahead. And we'll look forward to the economic driver, which is going to be that development, but also that Carnival Cruise Line terminal, which we know is going to bring hundreds of thousands of passengers to the city to invest back into the city . So thank you guys very much. Communication from Councilman Austin, Councilmember Super Now Council member Urunga recommendation to request the city manager to have the Long Beach Airport director work with the Airport Advisory Commission. Community members and airport stakeholders develop a long range masterplan for the Long Beach Airport. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank my colleagues, Council Supernormal and Urunga, for signing on. There's been some misinformation and speculation in some of the press as to why this agenda item is before us here tonight. This is actually something that we have we first considered back in February of this year. So this is not a last minute tactic or or this this wasn't a short sighted agenda item. However, I've been concerned that it seems to when it comes to the Long Beach Airport, the city has been in a very reactive mode, responding to external pressures to pursue certain development objectives. There is not a clear, articulated vision of the direction where the city wants to see the airport going in the long term. And that has eroded confidence of many residents in impacted neighborhoods throughout the city that are truly looking at the interests of all the stakeholders when it comes to decisions affecting the airport. Most airports, whether they are large commercial airports or small general aviation airports, have airport master plans. The FAA described the goal of a master plan is providing guidelines for future development. Hurry back. So the 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 social economic issues, the existing existing in the community. The FAA guidelines also state that each master plan study must focus on specific needs of the airport for which a plan is being prepared, and the scope of the study must be tailored to the individual airport. Therefore, in a given study, certain master planning elements may be emphasized, while others may not be considered at all. Clearly, with the Long Beach Airport, the driving factor in any plan must be protecting our airport noise ordinance. And with the long range plan that involves, it incorporates the views of the stakeholders to the airport, which not only involves airport users and businesses, but residents and communities in several council districts. We can articulate a vision that inspires confidence and provides an appropriate balance between the community, passengers, environmental and economic interests. However, I do recognize that not everyone has had the opportunity to fully invest the gate and the concept of a master plan. And so I'd like to ask my colleagues to support a revised motion to to the agenda item, which is to request the city manager report back to the City Council within 30 days on the process involved. Potential scope and the pros and cons of developing a long range master plan for the Long Beach Airport. And I would ask for my my colleagues support on that. Sorry, I Brosnan just wrapped up. And is it now controversy? Controversial product. You want to comment on the second or. I'm fine. I think the motion and I don't want to speak for my colleague because he's right here. But the intention is this all came at us very quickly and we had very quick briefings on this. So if the intention is to get an official response from city staff, I support that. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. So just to clarify, this isn't going to delay at all the process that we're going through with the FISA. My understanding is based on this motion. Well, doesn't mention anything about FISA. Okay. So that that process is unrelated to this and this issue. This request is just for a report that will outline what the process is, what a master plan is, what it could include, and the pros and cons. So it'd be a comprehensive look at what it would look like to enter that process. Basically. Is that your. Understanding, your your intent? Okay. Great. Thank you. Councilwoman Pierce. Yes. I had one question about Alps and how they might relate to master plans. I mentioned that over to our airport director, Jess Romo. Yes, Councilwoman. Just remove from Long Beach Airport. An Al Port Airport layout plan is a document that the airport, each airport has to maintain and update based on changes that occur from time to time at an airport. As an example, Long Beach Airport has a submission in with the regional FAA office, currently as part of the decommissioning of the two North-South runways. In essence, an Al Pea is a very abbreviated version of a master plan. It is not a full blown or a comprehensive master plan, but it is it is considered an alternative to a master plan. And can you also elaborate on how land use elements might complement that? Yeah. Well, as relates to land use, two elements are contained in an LP. Those are considerations. Long Beach Airport as part of the city's general plan. My understanding is that because it's within the city limits, general land uses specifically with zoning have been considered as part of the city's general plan. A companion piece, separate but parallel, is the county's Airport Land Use Commission, which looks specifically at land uses and around airports. And that is also something that has been done over the years for Long Beach Airport, specifically as it relates to zoning, as it relates to the terminal concourse improvements that were recently done, as well as the two business parks that are adjacent, that are that are actually part of the airport property. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I'm going to ask my colleagues to support a received file of this item tonight. If I could get the button to make a new motion, a substitute motion. Over my term with several different airport directors in several meetings with business associations and aviation community and the new community at Douglas Park. I think that what I have learned, especially in discussions with neighborhood associations, is that our number one priority is protecting the noise ordinance. Airport director, would you state for us a little bit of your background and information related to master plans at airports that you've experienced? I know we've discussed when that started in I think it was 1996 and another one that started after that and the amount they cost and how long they take and that truly that would actually be a greater threat to our noise ordinance than anything else. Well, I can speak to, you know, first and foremost, my experience. I'm approaching my 19th year as an airport professional. You know, before coming here to Long Beach, I spent that time with L.A. World airports in a various number of positions, including airport manager for both Ontario and Van Nuys airports. Van Nuys Airport did complete a master plan that started in 1992 and was completed in 2006. I chose essentially a 14 year endeavor. The focus was land use, but it was called a master plan. The bulk of the work was done internal. So was both city planning staff as well as airport staff. So I don't have a specific number, but I can tell you that it was with a lot of resource support that went into producing and finalizing that document. More recently, even though it's still been a while, Ontario Airport initiated a master plan in 2001 over a four year period. The city of Los Angeles, L.A. World Airport, spent $2 million on that effort. That that effort stopped after 2005, with the new director coming on board in 2007. She made the decision that it was not the time to complete the master plan. So it has been shelved, practically speaking. But knowing that the airport is under a new authority as of today, actually, they may reinitiated. But to your to your question, in both cases, one, it was a 14 year effort. In the second case, it was something that lasted four years and cost $2 million. And would you speak to whether or not you personally believe we would be at greater risk should we pursue a master plan? With my understanding of master plans and what they are and what they're intended to achieve in primarily master plans, corporate comprehensive 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 going 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 you would be elevating the risk. And 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, that that is a high priority. 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 have done a lot of research related to the pavement and the investments that have been put in, both by the federal government and others that have put the airport in a position where we're able to protect the noise ordinance and that we're able to monitor and protect those buckets. 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 intent for a more broad East Side plan that could consider transportation and all the other components that allow for economic development without expansion of flights. But I feel that at this time this has not been on The Matrix for eight weeks. This was added on the supplemental agenda. I know that at previous meetings Councilmember Austin specifically stated that he was not favorable of Councilmember Pearce's addition of items on the supplemental agenda. And I, I think that this is a significantly similar and if there are differences, I apologize that I don't know them. But I wished that a partnership could have been formed to move forward on this from a more holistic approach as it is in the fifth District. And I've worked with the Douglas Park planners, I know what's coming down the pipeline, I've worked with the Spring Street Business Association, I've worked with South of Kona and Art Craft Manor and Lakewood Village and a lot of the neighborhoods on the side. And I would look forward to the opportunity to partner and work with the other neighborhood associations as well. 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, then I think that that's not enough direction. 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. But I think that that the city needs proper scoping. And and this is not to be disrespectful to the city staff, but we have far too many report backs that have not come back timely. And I'm not looking to add any more that would delay the ones that we've already committed to. I really would like to see those return as there are certain components of some of those, including the Internet and the infrastructure and others of economic development that I think are a factor in this. And I've been waiting for those and I know that I'm working with Brian Stokes of it, but I think that some of those are really crucial in scoping what we want to do at the airport. So I hope my colleagues will support a received file and that it doesn't need to come back in 30 days. But we could revive a new a completely new and different item that has all of the proper elements when the time is right. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. Thank you very much. And I just want to address she said a lot, a whole lot there. And I don't think it was all accurate or nor did it accurately reflect my my intentions here. And so, Ms.. McGill, I'm going to restate the motion. It was the request of the city manager report back to the city council within 30 days on a process involved. Potential scope in the pros and cons of developing a long range masterplan for Long Beach Airport. That 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 that represent thousands of residents who also live under the flight path of Long Beach Airport. I would also also just just just like everyone to to understand that I certainly would have included Councilmember Mongo in the this item. However, you were you were absent for three weeks in a row. And so there was not a lot of opportunity to have conversation with you during that period of time and that the airport is a citywide resource. When we were talking about redoing the Civic Center, we're talking about doing anything major here. It requires nine votes in every one of these council members are engaged and and respected and brought to the table and engaged in the process. This is not a fifth District asset, and I want to be very clear on that. And so. We this is something that and again, the the intent here is to help us articulate a vision, but more importantly, bringing all of the stakeholders to the table, including the community. Right. We represent and we are elected by residents of the city. And I've heard on many occasions from individuals who say, well, you know, there are people who bought their homes next to the airport or underneath the flight path. And what is. Well, nobody knows what to expect because we don't have a long way to play it. We don't have a long range visit. We do have an ordinance which is very, very important. And I think that is the Holy Grail. And if we were to pursue a master plan, I think that should be on the first page of the master plan in terms of our intention, the city. Mr. Romo, you talked about master plans that that seek to expand capacity. 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 airport noise ordinance. And so I'm looking at a document right here that says that. And I got to reference this document, but it's pretty voluminous. It's. But but it says that there's a great deal of flexibility for for airports that go into scoping their their master plans. And I would imagine that any master plan moving forward, should we go down that route, because what we're asking for and what's only before us this evening doesn't even go there. But should we do go that route? I can imagine that that, this, this. And since everybody here says that they support our noise ordinance, I wouldn't imagine that anybody would do anything to to to suggest we should expand our capacity or jeopardize the noise ordinance. And so, members, I would ask that you reject the receiving file motion and support the original motion, because it is a common sense approach. It's a responsible approach to to looking forward and including all stakeholders in the airport process, planning process. A controversial panel. Yeah. And thank you for that clarification. I think we know where council member Austin wants to go with this. It's it's not going to a master plan. It's asking for a report back from city staff. I think Councilmember Mongo kind of made the point in that this was rushed. We had. And kudos to our airport director. He's new yet he was able to get an opinion back to us over a weekend, basically. So I think all we're saying is, let's give him a little more time. 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 that's something some type of a hybrid that we need moving forward just to let it go. I think some of this was triggered by the fact that we sat here in these council chambers a week ago and we heard the consultant deliver back and economic feasibility report that did not isolate the city of Long Beach. What we have here is a failure to communicate. So I'm thinking that that kind of triggers the fact that we need to get our act together on the city side here a little bit before spending $350,000 on a consultant's report. I can't speak if that was the motivation for Councilmember Austin, but it sure made me think about how exactly are we directing this consultant before we spend money on this? So what I'd like to do is just respectfully ask Councilmember Mongeau to withdraw her motion and move forward on the 30 day plan. Thank you. Councilmember Austin, would you be open to 60 days? Why? 60 days? Well. E The specific question that was asked was whether or not. It would create a greater risk. And our airport director 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 east side and a lot of other report backs that are coming within the next 30 days that I think are crucial. Specifically, I'm 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 that would give another to get us up to either 45 or 60 days and just mindful that many of the reports we've asked back in either 30 or 60 or 90 days have not come back timely. So maybe we would just pick a date certain that we would get an I'm asking we're doing a two from four from the city staff or you're asking for it to come back to council? Well, I was asking for a report back and a report back can come in either way. Okay. Secondly, I think you're making up facts because I didn't hear him say that this is going to create a significant risk. He said that if we move forward with expanding capacity, air capacity at our in our airport, it would create a significant risk and so on. That point would building. I'll just ask a question to the airport director since we're on the question of risk, does this building infrastructure at our our airport infrastructure capacity to airport expose us to risk as well? Well, the general term infrastructure, whether you're talking about something on the airfield. Versus terminal. Terminals, you know, I think any time you are looking at changes, there's always going to be some risk that that will come up again. As I said, with with a master plan, I'm not going to speculate in terms of the amount of risk. But I think that any time there's a change, you know, as a city, you have to manage that and acknowledge that that, you know, there is risk there. There's risk there if we do nothing. I appreciate. And and so the request is what I would accept a friendly amendment to to do 60 days. I would the question is to the airport director, can you get this back to us within 30 days? Well, my preference would be to have more time so that it's a thoughtful document and I'm not trying to fish for a longer period. But I think something, you know, in between maybe 45 days would make sure that we get the council back, something that's thoughtful and thought out. I could accept 45 days. I can accept 45 days. Thank you. Okay. That's good. Look, before we move on to the rest of the council, do you want to continue to go to the public first? Okay. Can we please go to the public for public comment? Good evening, Mayor and Council Members Ray Garbage District eight. When this first came to my attention, I over the weekend I connected with two area airport managers. And it was interesting because both of them were on opposite sides of their position on this. And one of them said that your noise ordinance is your master plan. It controls what's going on at the airport. He also said that if you do do a master plan, you're going to have regional, state and federal attention looking at you. And the very first thing that you do in a master plan is determine capacity. Our airport can build a very large terminal on both the east side and on the north side. We have lots of property. Would that be a demand? I am not sure the FAA would be watching as well. The other points that he made were, after all the years of the litigation that you went through to discover environmental capacity, the footprints that we have equate to our noise limits. He also said that while while this would be ongoing, there are other issues that we should be concerned about. And one of them is there is a environmental justice lawsuit at L.A.X. in the poorer communities. And in that litigation they're talking about, why isn't John Wayne in Long Beach taking more of their share? And then you look at the Scaggs travel documents and they are forecasting and they recognize in their document that we could handle we have a noise ordinance, but we should be able to handle 5 million passengers. That's a 50% increase of what we do today. So there's that side and then there's the other side of, oh, no, you know, the more study, the better. But but the other person said to me that an office facility would have to be part of the master plan. And there I think there's going to be other people here, I think, to talk about the next gen situation that's going to begin, I believe, in the middle of November and it's going to the third phase of it is going to come in in March. And there are cities on both sides of us that are suing. There are cities on the East Coast, the state of Phenix, Los Angeles, Culver City, that are suing because the noise has been expanded. And if you read what our former airport manager says when he wrote about next gen, his concern was that the flight patterns are going to impact larger areas of the seventh and the eighth District, but they're also going to impact the east side and the southeast side. So I think there's a lot to be considered. And if the master plan is something that you're going to go forward with, the office absolutely has to be a part of that. I know that's what you asked, Suzy. And and I think that maybe that was the wrong answer that you received. And, Daryl, what you said about they didn't really give anything specific to Long Beach. That was one of the tasks that they were assigned at 3.4.1, they were to give you quantify the economic impact to the city and the local regional economy related to an FAA facility. So they didn't complete their job. They didn't do what they were asked to do. So I'd like to see that go back to them before you make any further decisions. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is run in fifth District. I support Al Austin and Darryl Soup Supernova and Iran guy who's not here, but he's got a short fuze somewhere down the line. Just joking. I understand Stacy's concerns about the airport. As a District five resident, I've tried and tried and tried to ask a number of questions through my own district office. And I've had a lot of difficulty getting many of the same information that she says that she has to us to give it out to the residents. I can't get it. We've demanded meetings. We've tried everything we can do regarding the airport and we haven't gotten anything. If the only way we can get information out to the residents is to get a report or something like that, I think it's fine. I come out of the aerospace industry and I understand what people are saying, Oh, it's so difficult. But there's never been a project that I've ever been on and I've been on projects that are larger than than the budget in the city that were. I can't figure out how to solve and get a report back to me in a fashion that I want that will be in a way that will be risk, which will remove the risk that we have our concerns. We can do it. I know Romo is an intelligent guy. He can do it. I know he can. It's not hard, but all we're doing is asking for a report from our city manager. You know, it's just can we do it? Why do we need to have done. It's not a it's not rocket science. You know, what do we need? What are the elements? That's it. You know, we got a report from Jacobs. I used to work for Jacobs, and I'm telling you, it was insufficient that this is for Long Beach. We're spending $300,000 of taxpayer money for this thing. And that was garbage. And I'm not I'm not saying that that's bad. But we got a guy who comes from JetBlue. He goes to two different meetings and he's giving false information to both people, to both meetings. I got his name up already reported in to the executives in the company. He's going to be gone. I mean, these are things that are happening. We're seeing all this stuff. People running around. Residents don't have confidence in the way that this is being handled. We're trying to get information and we're not getting it. And no matter what we do, there's a lot of misinformation, people connecting the noise ordinance to the to the this report. Yes. And I understand it's not there. You know, there's no connection right now. So but we need to get information to us. And this is a minimal standard that we have to ask for. You know, I'm looking through all of the numbers that Jacobs has. I'm an expert in this type of stuff. And I'm telling you, there's no backup information for the hard figures that we got. And I'm trying to figure out where they got him. And all I got is a computer program that they're relying on that we have no idea how it works. And this is a problem that I have. I'm sorry. I got a little emotional. I didn't mean to do that. It's okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Councilman Mongo. Just to follow up on what Ramon had mentioned, we're so fortunate in the fifth district to have an expert in pavement management and aviation and soccer living in our own district. So Mr. Ramon has received every report that we have available and there just aren't some reports because they have not been requested or commissioned by the city . And so while I appreciate that he wants more information, we've provided everything that we are available to provide. Thank you. Continuing public comment. Yes. Hi, how are you? Laurie Smith. Uh, district. Three. I've talked to you guys about this before, but I just want to talk about what you guys had mentioned about elevating the risk to our noise ordinance and also what airport director Romo had mentioned that, um, the risk is that we, that we do nothing as well, is there. So I do want to mention again, as I read to you last year. Former airport director Bryant Francis had sent a letter to the FAA regarding his concerns about how it's going to adversely. Affect our noise ordinance. And these these new procedures are going. To be affecting us beginning November 10th is. Phase one. March 2nd is phase two and April 27th is phase three. And last week the Culver City and Newport Beach City Councils were so concerned that they filed lawsuits to block the FAA metroplex. And so, you know, I'm just. Looking for you as our elected officials. To support us, your constituents in our quality of life. So here's here's some things that Bryant. Francis had sent. In his letter to the FAA regarding the. Metroplex Metroplex, which is going to be affecting everything in the Southern California area, that he believes that the FAA has. Not given appropriate consideration. To the reduction of environmental impacts, particularly noise and developing the airspace proposals presented, and that as a result, the proposals do not meet the goals. That Congress had defined for it. He further goes on to say that he has some concerns with regards to how these changes could impact. Citizens and communities near airport. He further goes on to say that it will neither. That it could jeopardize or preclude the ability of the air carriers and general aviation community from utilizing procedures and complying with the city's noise limits. So airport director Romo had mentioned that there is a risk that we do nothing. And that's what I'm sorry to say that the city council has done with regards to taking into account the FAA metroplex that's going to be affecting us. It's not just this airport, it's the other airports. So in that time, the city government which manages the airport, has allowed us to move forward with nine supplemental slots and now a feasibility study. And it seems to be that the sole wants to be done before the FAA metroplex comes down on the residents. And it's a little concerning that that that seems to be what city. Government has been looking to do is push this through before we all get affected by. By heavy noise impacts. So I just like to also know if. You take your time I'm sorry, time is up. If airport rama if we've gotten a response back from the FAA, from the airport director, I just would like to know if we have a response back and if this is something that is is able to be given to your constituents. Thank you so much. Thank you very much for coming. Time is up. And Mr. West, maybe we can follow up on that last question. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Soto. Joe. So, Mr. Mayor and city council members Joe Soto, Mr. Airport Manager, there's a. Meeting tomorrow in Orange County. It's a NexGen meeting. In Orange County, one of our local high schools. So we were wondering if you were going to attend that meeting. Or if you knew about it. I guess you don't answer back, but that's I want to put that out of. Thank you. Carney I see no other public comment. Public comments closed back to the council. Councilman Pearce. Thank you. I just wanted to say, you know, I think giving this 45 days something I support and wanted to see if we can make sure we include in that report things that are already tied to similar things as a master plan, as we discussed earlier, and what the timeline of a master plan would be, what the cost of a master plan would be. And that would be it. So I support, you know, Councilmember Mungo's substitute motion. So. Councilman. Councilman Austin. So I don't believe that was a substitute motion. It was a friendly amendment. Is that correct? Yes. I requested to remove my substitute motion and and Fred instead made a friendly that Councilmember Austin accepted. Yes. Sorry, but it's still on the board under the previous. So we'll fix that on the board. The motion is Councilmember Austin's 45 day motion. Thank you. Councilman Roston. Anything else? Nope. Councilman Mongo. No further questions. Okay. There is a there is a motion in a second on the floor. It's not yet up on the board. If I. Right now, there's. No it was. It was. It was. It was. Yeah. Okay. It's recorded. Okay. Members was going to cast your votes. Ocean carries. Okay. Thank you. Now we're going back to a presentation that we had earlier that we didn't get to, and that is going to be the presentation, I believe, from gas and oil. And I think Mr. West was going to start off by saying something.