Recommendation to conduct a study session to receive and discuss the Fiscal Year 2015 Airport Noise Budget Analysis Report and Supplemental Slot Allocation.  (District 5)
So now we're back to the airport. I think we're going to go there. So let's do the airport. So again, let me reintroduce the airport. Executive Director Bryant Francis. And let's just start from the top, please. Yes, sir. Once again, good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of council and everyone in attendance this evening. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the airports noise budget performance. This is a critical issue for the airport and for the city. The annual review of our noise performance is required by the noise ordinance. It is something that we do in the fourth quarter of each calendar year. As you are aware, our noise ordinance is one of few in the nation grandfathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. It is a balance between airline and community interests. It provides unparalleled protection for our community and its residents. One of the strengths of the ordinance is that it accounts for changes in the industry, such as the use of quieter aircraft while holding the noise levels to maximum limits. Because of the ordinance, we are able to ensure that our noise levels do not increase. The best way to ensure that we are able to keep the ordinance in place is to abide by it. This is something that we at the airport, along with our city attorney and city prosecutor, worked very hard to do. The ordinance requires that we allow a minimum of 41 air carrier flights per day. It also requires that we evaluate the noise levels annually to ensure we are below the noise budget specified by the ordinance and to determine if additional flight slots must be added. There are 18 noise monitors located around Long Beach Airport. The noise levels that we will discuss this evening are based on actual noise data from our airport noise and operations monitoring system or enemies. This is a multimillion dollar noise monitoring and flight tracking system that correlates noise levels with aircraft operations. Noise monitors are associated with each of our three runways. We have six regulatory noise monitors as depicted in orange on the screen. These monitors are the violation monitors. The ordinance establishes maximum noise levels for individual aircraft at each of these monitors. These monitors are important as they serve as the basis for our monetary fines. The noise limits are based on 1989 1990 noise levels and have never been modified. We are not proposing to modify them tonight. Noise levels will be retained at 1989. 90 levels. Noise monitors nine and ten as depicted in red. Are at either end of our primary runway, runway one, two, three zero, and they are our noise budget monitors. In addition to maximum noise levels for each aircraft, the ordinance establishes cumulative noise budgets for these monitors. In addition to monitoring the maximum noise levels, we monitor total noise exposure, which is all noise throughout the year at these locations. The ordinance specifies total noise, exposure limits or noise budgets for five aircraft categories, including air carriers, which is the focus of tonight's discussion. Remote monitoring terminal or empty nine is located north of the airport and is our primary monitor for departure operations. Our M10 is located south of the airport and is our primary monitor for aircraft arrivals each year during the fourth quarter. We evaluate the total annual noise exposure at these locations. The noise ordinance establishes a minimum floor of 41 air carrier flights. As mentioned earlier, under the ordinance, air carriers are encouraged to operate at the lowest possible noise levels. This encouragement is provided by requiring an increase in the number of flight slots. If the air carrier category operates below the established noise budget and there is room in the budget to provide a cushion against exceeding that budget. Following these steps is critical to protecting the budget based on long term noise monitoring data. We know that aircraft have gotten quieter over time. This graph depicts historical aircraft noise levels measured at RS 89, which again is a monitor which measures departing aircraft. Some of these aircraft are no longer operating at the airport. The aircraft in the upper portion of the graph, which are the Boeing 727, the very first aircraft, the DC nine and the MD 80 represent older aircraft and engine technologies. The lower portion of the graph depicts new, quieter engine technologies. These newer aircraft represent the vast majority of today's airline fleet. The reduced noise levels and change in the airline fleet is what has prompted me to take this action tonight. Based on our consultant's analysis of the noise data and projection of future flight activity, their recommendation, along with an independent peer review of the data and conclusions, is that we must add nine slots. This graph depicts the historical annual measured noise levels at RS 89. Since 2003, the highest levels reflect periods when older technology aircraft were operating at the airport, as shown in the graph. With the exception of 2011, when we experienced a period of significant operations of older technology, MD 80 aircraft. The airport has been operating significantly below the established noise budget. This graph depicts similar data for our M10. We do not see the prominent spikes in the data that we saw for our mt9. This is because our m t ten is primarily an arrival noise monitor and a rival. Noise levels are typically quieter and more consistent than departure noise levels. Our noise ordinance includes an incentive for the airlines to operate quietly. This incentive is the requirement for the airport to add air carrier flights if the noise goals are met. These noise goals are based on data obtained from the 1980 990 time period. We believe that we are the only city air airport able to ensure that our noise levels do not increase based on the data and the provisions of the ordinance. We must add flights. Next question is how many flights must be added? As mentioned previously, all 41 area air carrier slots are currently allocated. However, air carriers are operating approximately 31 flights per day on average. We need to account for this unused allocation in the noise budget. Otherwise, we run the risk of exceeding the budget. If the airlines were to begin flying a larger portion of their allocated slots. Currently our carriers are flying 74% of the available slots. That is part of why our noise levels are low. The long term ten year average utilization of slots is 84%. The maximum slot utilization is 93%. And I should note that this occurred one time only for one quarter in the summer of 2005. The maximum utilization in any 12 month period is 90%, which was calendar year 2009. And the maximum utilization in a noise year, which is October through September, was 87%, which was from October 28 through September 2009. In order to determine the number of additional slots that should be added, we need to account for the slots that are not currently utilized to be conservative. Our consultant calculated what the noise levels would be if the air carriers operated 95% of their available slots, which is above the level we have ever experienced at the airport. The noise levels based on 95% utilization of all available slots are shown in yellow for the period 2010 to 2015. As you can see, even if all the current flights flew at 95%, that's across all 41 minimum allocated slots. Because the planes are operating so much quieter, there is still significant capacity in the noise budget. And this is the same data for R.A. ten, which is an a noise monitor. This data serves as the baseline for determining how much room is available in the noise budget. Our consultant used a mix of common aircraft types to determine the noise levels from additional slots. These aircraft for the Boeing 737 700, Boeing 737 800, and the Boeing 757. They assumed four Boeing 737 700 aircraft for Boeing 737 800 aircraft and one Boeing 757 aircraft. These aircraft are conservatively representative of the airlines fleets today, as the slots may be flown by quieter aircraft such as the Airbus 320. As shown in this slide, four are empty. Nine. Even with the additional slots and all slots flown at 95% utilization. The airport would be below the 1989 1990 noise levels. These projections are very conservative, as the consultant used the louder of the representative aircraft flown at utilization rate that is higher than we have ever seen at the airport to ensure we do not exceed our budgets. This is the same data for R.A. ten. The data for R.A. ten is a little tighter than for R.A. nine, which is because, as aircraft have gotten quieter, this noise monitor becomes our limiting noise monitor. Again, the maximum slot utilization over the last 20 years is 93%, which occurred one time in summer of 2005. And this very conservative model of 95% utilization of all 41 minimum slots and 95% utilization of the nine new supplemental slots. We anticipate being near the allowable limit at our empty ten. We will watch this closely as required by the ordinance. The additional slots are valid for a period of one year and if we see the 1989 1990 noise levels that either are empty nine or are empty ten, the available slots will be reduced as the ordinance requires active management. To summarize, this action is required by the noise ordinance. The conclusions and recommendations are based on long term data from aircraft operations at our airport. The F-15 analysis conducted by Landrum and Brown was peer reviewed by Harris, Miller, Miller and Hansen, both highly reputable firms in airport and aircraft noise analysis. The results of the peer review were consistent with the original analysis and support Landrum and Brown's findings. This action is required in an effort to preserve and protect the noise ordinance. The ordinance cannot be adhered to. In part, we must abide by it in full in order to continue to enjoy its benefits. As a result, we must add nine flight slots. As next steps. There's an established procedure for awarding the slots. We will notify all carriers, U.S. based carriers of slot availability. Those carriers interested in additional flying or new flying will submit that interest to the airport. And slots will be awarded based on an established protocol per the allocation resolution. And we have 30 days to allocate the slots at that time. Vince M.E., our long time consultant for noise analysis, is regrettably unable to join us tonight. However, Cristian Valdez is here with a statement to read on Mr. Masters behalf. He's a member of Mr. Mystery's team, and I'd like to invite him to the podium at this time. Good evening. Mayor and council members. My name is Christian Valdez with Landrum Brown Acoustical Consultants to Long Beach Airport. I have a statement prepared by Vince Mastery, the primary acoustical consultant for the airport who couldn't be here tonight. You know, I read the statement to you now. My name is Vince Master. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of California, and I have over 40 years of aviation noise experience. I have an advanced degree in engineering and have authored numerous peer reviewed journal journal articles. I'm sorry I'm on the East Coast at the present time and cannot be here in person. Christian Valdez of my staff is here to represent Landrum and Brown and read this statement. I've been working closely with Long Beach Airport on issues relating to the air and air carrier noise budget since 1999. Based on my analysis and review of noise data for October 1st, 2014 through September 30th, 2015, I have determined that the airport is currently operating below the noise budget for air carriers. The ability, the availability of capacity within the noise budget at the airports at the airport is likely due to a change in aircraft fleet mix. Specifically in the past, two aircraft have tended to dominate the noise budget calculations at the airport because of their high noise levels on departure. These are the Boeing 7 to 7 historically used for cargo flights and the McDonnell Douglas, MD 80. The Boeing 7 to 7 has been decreasing in use and is now essentially gone from the US fleet, although still in use in some charter operations. And the MD 80, while still in some airline fleet, is also decreasing in use by U.S. airlines. The number of additional flights at the airports at the airport must allocate to operate within the established noise budget is dependent on the number of new flights, the aircraft type and the time of day of the operations. Since evening and night operations are heavily penalized in the noise budget, using data that reflects the current operations and fleet mix at the airport. The estimated number of flights that could be added has been presented to you and is the subject of your discussions. While these estimates are valid for the typical operator at Long Beach, any proposed new operations that are requested through the allocation process would have to be reviewed for the aircraft type and type of operations. Time of operation. For example, if a new operator were to reintroduce the MD 80, the number of slots available, available drops dramatically. We are prepared to evaluate any proposed new operations to determine whether the initiation of service utilizing those flights would lead the air carriers, air carriers as a group to maintain compliance with the noise levels established in the baseline noise budget. The noise ordinance at Long Beach Airport carefully balances the environmental interest of the community while providing capacity increases at the airport. Although most airports are limited to their ability to control aircraft under the 1990 Airport Noise Capacity Act and Grandfather Clause permits the airport to continue to limit hours of operation, single event noise and control over noise overall noise through a noise budget provided that the airport complies with Anka and its FAA grant assurances, including increasing the number of flights to the extent possible while maintaining the noise budget at the airport. Essentially, then the airport must allocate flights above the 41 flight limit. If the airport determines that the initiation of those flights would not lead. Two, the air carriers exceeding the noise levels established in the noise budget. We have made our estimates and the additional capacity that is available with these important issues is in mind. That's the end of the statement. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bass. Before I turn this over to begin with questions, I know that our city attorney and just so that people are aware, this process in large part was also led through our city attorney's office in making determinations and working with our city manager. So, Mr. Parkin, if you want, I know you're going to weigh in on a few things. Mayor. Thank you. Mayor Members of City Council. That's correct. Mike Mays and myself and our office have worked closely with the airport on this issue. Mike's been involved with it for 20 years and is very familiar with the ordinance and its requirements. We also requested and staff agreed on the peer review of the initial studies and data, and we stand ready to answer any of your questions. Okay. Great. Thank you for turning this over now to council for four questions. Councilman Mongo. Yes, I appreciate the presentation. And most specifically, I appreciate. Slide ten and Slide 11, which we discussed at our prior briefing, that of how helpful that would be to understand and visualize the noise and what that looks like. Many have heard me say that the process where people get to come forward and speak for 3 minutes, we don't get to engage in a dialog and a lot of times there are questions that don't get to be answered. So I sent out a request of my constituents 12 12,000 emails and received back a multitude of questions which we've consolidated that I'd like to make sure that are answered in the public forum. So if the city staff are available to answer these, I'm the first question was and I can give the percentage of the answer that I know off the top of my head, and then maybe we can work together to answer some of them. How many of the minimum 41 air carrier slots and 25 commuter slots are being used on a regular basis? Who are the slots allocated to and how much are they utilized? Specifically, I know that we've discussed that the current slot allocation is 32 to JetBlue, five to American, two to Delta, one to FedEx and one to UPS. That is correct. Can you answer the the question related to regular basis usage right now? Yes. For the most recent 12 month period, JetBlue was at approximately 70% utilization. Both of the air cargo carriers, FedEx and UPS were right at 70% as well. Delta, with its air carrier slots, was in the low 90% range, as was American slash U.S. Airways. And in the commuter category, there are three of 25 total slots currently allocated all to Delta, and they are utilizing those that are approximately 65%. Thank you. Why is it necessary to increase the number of air carrier slots to 50? If only 30.4 of them are being utilized on an average basis. I can try to answer that question. First of all, even though that the utilization is actually lower than historically or historic averages, that's not what we look at when we look at to add supplemental slots. Basically, we look simply at the noise budget. All of the carriers that Brian mentioned, even though they are flying at different levels, are all flying legally within the terms of our ordinance and its companion flight allocation resolution. So we simply look at the budget themselves. And as the presentation demonstrated, this addition of nine slots was actually modeled by our noise consultants, as if all of the carriers, all 41 of them at the airport or all 41 slots were being flown at a 95% level, which. I think you also said was higher than any year. But 19 or 25. Historically, the 18 year averages 84% among all 41 slots. So we really look at the budget itself and not the. I was going to say underutilization of the slots because they are being utilized in accordance with the ordinance in the resolution. And is this an implied or explicit requirement of the noise ordinance? The requirement to add additional slot? Yes, sir. It is an explicit requirement of the ordinance. And what's the airport director's role? So it's somewhat unique in this particular ordinance, which, as was mentioned in the presentation, was adopted in 1995 after 12 years of litigation in federal court, and basically the consent of the air carriers that were suing the city at the time, together with the federal judge and the FAA. For good. I forgot the question. I'm sorry. The airport directors role versus the city over mayor. The airport directors role is called out in the ordinance as the airport director rather than city council or the city manager. That makes a determination on whether or not additional slots can be added. I'm sorry. No problem. And who can apply for those nine slots? So, as Mr. Francis indicated, any certificated, certificated air carrier could apply for those slots, whether they're an incumbent carrier existing at air airport now or a carrier that's. No, not at our airport. Some of these questions were submitted before the the constituents were able to see the presentation. But I think that it's important that they have the answers so that when they do come up to make their three minute speech in case they missed that part of the presentation. So I appreciate you still answering them. Must a certain number of outside carriers that are not at the airport or any requirement of current tenants apply for the noise ordinance to be preserved? Or is it open to all. The city's obligation? The airport's obligation is to make the flight slots available for allocation. If, hypothetically, no one were to apply for those nine slot supplemental slots, the city would be fully compliant with Anka and its ordinance, and there would be no violation that the FAA would recognize. We just have to make them available. And if the deadline passed and no one had applied, would we need to extend the deadline and leave it open in case someone asked or would be open at a year later? They would be open until the next budget year and we would look at this and go through this exercise again next October, essentially. Will JetBlue be able to apply for any of the new slots, given that they're not utilizing their current allocated slots. As they indicated? JetBlue, as with all of the other carriers, are currently utilizing their slots in accordance with our current regulations are a flight allocation resolution in the ordinance. So the city does not have an ability to discriminate against any particular carrier in the allocation of the supplemental slots. So yes, JetBlue, as with all our other incumbent carriers, could apply for slots. And once those slots are allocated, are there conditions of which those slots could be removed or revoked? Yes. Again, that's within the purview of the airport director. And what would happen if we allocated the nine supplemental slots at the end of one year or 12 months of operation? We would look at the noise budget again and if the noise budget had been exceeded due to the adding of those nine slots, one or more slots would be automatically removed. And the way it works in the ordinance is we would actually eliminate the noisiest slots first until we came below the budget. So not in the order they were awarded, but noisiest first. And are there conditions by which a slot could be revoked mid-year? There's really no provision in the ordinance for a midyear revocation. What if they violated curfew hours at the airport? All of the supplemental slots are subject to all of the other existing airport noise, rule and regulations, so they would have to comply with the curfew, the departure and landing, the departure and landing times just like any other carrier. And if they failed to do that, they would be subject to administrative penalties or criminal prosecution. I know you addressed this, but just to be clear and make it a specific question, when the additional thoughts are added, should JetBlue begin to utilize all of their currently unused slots? What would happen if all the noise exceeds the ordinance limit midyear? So we would still look at it at the end of next fiscal year for revocation. But as I indicated with JetBlue, the way it was modeled it suppose that JetBlue was already flying at 95% of their rate. Even if JetBlue were to fly at 100% of their rate, which I believe historically no air carriers ever done at the airport. There would still be room in the budget. So really, it is more dependent on the fleet mix. If someone were to come in with an outdated MD 80 or 77, that would be the thing that would more likely put it over the budget. And I know you answered that we would not be out of compliance if no one applied. And what effects will the FAA changes to flight paths on Southern California airports under the next gen program have on our noise budget? Yes. We've looked closely at the proposed NextGen procedures for Long Beach Airport. There are no changes to the procedures within our noise monitors, so we anticipate no change at all. Given implementation of the FAA, NextGen. And is the airport director planning to utilize two five right. With more commercial landings in addition to the current general aviation group? I know we are not the primary runaway. Runaway 1230 is utilized for. For all of our air carrier operations, unless it is unavailable for a brief period of time. At that time, runway seven left to five right is the backup runway. I should also point out that runway one, two, three, zero. There are no plans to have any extensive rehabilitation or construction of work going on with that runway over the next several years. So aside from very brief periods, we would not utilize any runway other than the primary for the air carrier operations. Does this study have anything to do with JetBlue's request that Long Beach add federal customs or an FAA facility for international flights? No, it does not is completely unrelated. And I could add on to that. Some of the council members that have been here a while will remember that this scenario of adding additional slots was actually studied in the airport area that dealt with the rehabilitation or the expansion of the airport terminals. So this was well in advance of JetBlue's request for the federal inspection station, and it was also analyzed in the original air, which was passed in 1980 or certified in 1986, and a subsequent negative declaration that studied the addition of supplemental slots, which was done in 1980, 1995. And is this at all related to the ACI and a conference that was held here in Long Beach related to aircrafts this year? No, it is not. And again, I appreciate you answering the questions despite your presentation, making some of these, because these were sent in in advance. Does the city's noise ordinance have any discussion about helicopter noise? No. The the noise ordinance establishes limits at the noise monitors which are associated with our runways. If the helicopters are operating to or from those runways, they are subject to the ordinance. We do not have any noise monitors in our primary helicopter quarters, however. And does the addition of nine new slots in any way impact other aircraft carrier usage categories? I think you talked about that already, and that was an explicit no. And what are the lost revenues from commercial airlines who left the airport and or underutilization over the last two years? What are the lost revenues? In the past. Public passenger flights, fliers. So we've taken a look at this since my arrival, and we've determined that the revenues are off by approximately $2 million in each of the last three fiscal years, and that is due almost exclusively to a reduction in flying, which leads to fewer passengers going through the terminal facility and all of the other revenue generating functions have . It has a ripple effect, in essence. So it's approximately $2 million annually. And have any of the potential, um, interested in any potential of the airlines that are interested in the slots reached out to express their explicit interest or do we have any written correspondence? I have met through the course of attending various industry events this year. I have I've been informed by various carriers that there is interest, general interest. But clearly at that time that was a discussion over which there was there was no slot allocation available, no slots available for allocation. So that would need to be revisited once the period for air carrier interest is is opened. I want to thank the members of the community who consolidated questions with us and made answering these questions possible. I wish I could have gotten back to everyone via phone call or email. As everyone is aware, we have a lot of items on the agenda. I think we took 30 phone calls today, and so I appreciate those of you who submitted in advance. I appreciate those of you who have come to any other community meeting and waited afterward to talk with me without interrupting the the cause of the community watch meeting or other matters that we had at the time. And I look forward to hearing my colleagues and the public before making additional comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Mongo, for asking many of the same questions that they actually have. And they were submitted to my office as well from many members of the public as I communicated to my constituents. I'm not thrilled about this news and potential action of awarding new slots at our airport. And not thrilled is an understatement. But I see this as more of an administrative and legal action as opposed to a policy decision by the by the council. That's that's very clear in the process and the ordinance. I do have several questions still, and I would just ask that the council and the public indulge us so we can get these questions out and answered so that people walk away from here with greater clarity. And so for the benefit from for everyone here, I'm going to ask, I think, an obvious question. Can you please provide an explanation in layman's terms about the differences between last year and this year, where yesterday the noise ordinance or noise study did not warrant additional flights? And this year we are now supposed to add nine new flights. I was reading a an op ed by by an airline executives last year on December of 2014. And he made mention to the fact that we were under well, under the noise allowable noise limit here in Long Beach. And so it was clear we were there that last year. Why different this year? Yes. Councilman Alston, for roughly the last three years there has been room available in the noise budget, in the air carrier noise budget. However, in the period as recently as late 2011 or early 2012, the airport still had activity by an operator that utilized the MD 80 aircraft, which was by far the the noisiest aircraft among the air carrier operations in Long Beach. So when it was determined that there was some room available with the FBI 12 analysis and there was still some room with the next year's analysis, it needed to be determined that there was a trend in place instead of in the very first year that there was a bit of room available . That room was immediately filled with new flying and then the potential would be there for it to go right back over because that operator had vacated the market. But they certainly could have reentered with the new slots that had would have become available had there been new slots allocated in prior years. And so there was a, I think, a real hesitation because of that aircraft type still being very prevalent with various air carriers being actively flown. As the years have passed, that aircraft is being retired at rapid rates, especially by American Airlines, which was formerly the largest operator of the MD 80, with over 400 aircraft in their fleet of the MD 80 type. But also, we have now established a trend. We have seen that there have been several periods where there is room available and the budget and the amount of available room has grown. And so we at a point now where it is time to to act to fill the available noise budget with these nine supplemental slots. So in short, the MDA shows what airline utilized the MDA. That was Allegiant. And is Allegiant still operating at the airport? They're still operating, but not at the airport, not at Long Beach at the present time. Okay. So they they are they are no longer operating. Correct. And one one great change about Allegiant. If they were to submit interest to return to the airport when they operated here in 2011, the only aircraft type they had in their fleet was the MD 80. Today they have a fleet of 25. In addition to the MD 80, they have a fleet of 25 A319 and A320 aircraft. The A320 we're very familiar with as that is what JetBlue flies here exclusively. So Allegiant has an option for an aircraft to put into this market that they did not have in 2011. Thank you, sir. So I'd like to, too, I'm going to jump around here with the additional nine flight slots. Certainly, I don't know much about airport operations. I would defer to you, Mr. Francis, but how does that impact and correlate with the FAA and other stakeholders that that that are necessary for airport operations? The 30 day window is the FAA prepared with air traffic controllers and TSA to handle. Nine more slots. So to speak. And how does that work? Well, I would I. Would say being consulted with in any way. They've not been consulted with. But I do not foresee any problem whatsoever in there being an ability to handle a an increase in the amount of aircraft activity by the FAA through the air traffic control system, nor on the ground with the TSA and the the passenger side of of the operation. Okay. And so your memo indicates that the slots will be awarded awarded in 30 days or within 30 days of becoming available. Can you describe that process and include when that 30 day clock starts to tick? Yes, sir. We'll have Mr. Mays respond to that question. Councilman Austin, the airport has a flight allocation protocol in place in the way it would work is that we would set an application time period of 30 days. Let's say hypothetically, it was January 1st. We would open up an application period. We would literally send a letter to each of our incumbent carriers at the airport indicating that there were nine slots available. We would also, as Mr. Francis indicated, send a letter, similar letters to all carriers that fly in the United States that may not be at our airport indicating that slots are available. At the conclusion of that period, we would see how many applications that we would have, and there could be a number of different scenarios if we had no applications at all because their one year supplemental slots, nothing would be allocated and we just move forward with what we have at the airport. If we had more than nine requests for slots or say two carriers each wanted six slots, we would basically go through a lottery process and it's set up to in essence favor slightly a non incumbents at the airport. So if you had an incumbent at the airport and none incumbent at the airport vying for slots, the non-incumbent would first be allocated to slots as opposed to the one slot that would be allocated to the incumbent at the airport. And so we would go through that allocation lottery process. They would have to submit to the airport what we call slot bonds that would guarantee the fact that they were actually going to utilize the slots. They would then have to demonstrate to us that they would advertise the slots as being ready for use within 90 days. They would actually have to, in order to retain the slot, have them up and running within a six month period. Okay. Thank you. So how does the appeal process impact the 30 day window? So the the appeal period would not allocate would not impact the 30 day window at all. The ordinance is clear that we have to do the allocation. So we would proceed in parallel, in essence. And the appeal period really wasn't discussed much here tonight. But basically the other thing I left out of the allocation protocol, in addition to sending notification to the air carriers, will also advertise in the newspaper the fact that we have slots available and set up a period of time in which people can appeal. It's a three tier appeal process. Basically the they could appeal directly to the airport director or the airport manager that subsequently could be appealed to the city manager of the city manager's designee and ultimately to the city council. But in a situation like this, what I liken to it's not like a C where it would come to the Council with much discretion in order not to allocate the nine slots. Basically someone would have to come forward with information that proved quite clearly that the calculations made by the various acoustical engineers who have presented the studies to the city council and the airport director were somehow incorrect. And that's precisely why we requested that at the beginning there would be peer review of our. Mr. Mestre, who's been there since 1999, his work. So in essence, we would proceed in parallel. So, Mr. Mayes, when was the last time we actually allocated new slots in the airport? So we literally have never allocated new slots under the ordinance that was adopted in 1995. Okay. That was a trick question. Okay. In your next steps, you say we're going to award the slots based on an established protocol and the protocol. How can we have a protocol if we've never done it before? That's what we've been working on. So we have put together we use the ordinance as a framework for developing the protocol. And so for the last couple of weeks, when we knew that this was going to come before the City Council, we have developed the protocol and our office did send each of the council members a copy of the protocol as an off agenda item earlier last week. So we have a very extensive protocol that lays out quite clearly, clearly what the airport air carriers must do if they want to apply. They have to first indicate to us they have the financial wherewithal to provide a slot bond. They have to indicate to us clearly what type of aircraft they intend to bring into the airport if they were allocated slots. They have to demonstrate that they are certificated by the FAA as a air carrier, air carrier and a few other things. So all of that is laid out in the protocol. It's about a five page protocol. Okay. So I think this this will address some of the concerns that I've heard from many of my residents. Currently, the Airport Advisory Commission receives a monthly activity and noise violation reports, and those reports are made available online. However, the findings of the annual noise budget study are not easily accessible as far as I know. And until this year that we have not been made publicly known, I think there's been part of it that's been part of the problem with this announcement about additional flight slots that the public do not have a real context to work from. And in the interest of transparency, can the airport staff make the annual noise study publicly available, such as through a report to the Airport Advisory Commission and posted on the airport website similar to the noise violation and activity reports. I know we are doing a lot of work and trying to and maybe our I-Team is paying attention here, but trying to create open data. And is that something that we can look at doing? Because I think that is part of what we we fell short. Yes, sir. Councilman Ross, we certainly can accomplish that. Okay. I think that was been that's been answered. And this question is for the street, for a city attorney. Is it your legal opinion that the airport noise ordinance requires the city to add these additional flights that slots based on the noise data available? Yes, that is correct. And what could potentially happen if the city did not make these additional slots available. That the failure to comply with the noise ordinance is is obviously the greatest risk to the FAA taking action against the city and either revoking the grandfather status. In addition, failure to allocate and follow the ordinance is going to implicate the grants, the FAA grants that the airport and the grant assurances. So over the years the city has received the FAA, the airport has received grant money. And in it, it requires that we comply with the terms of our anchor and the city's ordinance. And so that could implicate funding opportunities for the city and the city would maybe not be able to obtain those moneys. I think one issue that that concerns many, many people across the city is the fact that potentially our slots, airport slots are being gamed to a degree. And I think it would it would help. The question that I have is, is what what can the council do to prevent slot squadding, whether these are the new slots or the existing slots? Well, I'll ask Mike to jump in here, too. But I think that, as Mr. Maes pointed out, the slot squatting as described is in compliance with the city's slot resolution requirement and determines the rules on how the airlines must use their slots in order not to lose them or to maintain them. And that, as far as I know, that particular section of that resolution has not been changed since adopted in 1995. And Mike, if you want to add. We could look the council could look at potentially altering that. But that would take, I would think, a lot of discussion on the council to do that, because, in essence, if you did alter that resolution, you would in essence, be requiring air carriers to fly more frequently than sometimes they currently do. And so that would be a policy decision for the city council. I don't think you would get any pushback from the Federal Aviation Administration because they, quite frankly, like to see more planes in the air, but that the way it is structured now is based on when the resolution was passed, I think they tried to create a balance between the interests of the public and the preservation of their peace and quiet in their neighborhoods versus the rights of the air carriers to fly. So they came up with that scenario, which allows an air carrier to fly, as you've heard tonight, maybe as low as 64% of their actual slots, or 70% depending on the carrier . So but that is something that on a going forward basis, if the council wanted to look at that or wanted, we certainly could do that. Well, thank you. And I appreciate the the very straightforward answers to the questions. This is a difficult position, particularly for for me and the residents who I represent. This is, for the most part, not been seen as welcome news. But we all each and every one of these council members have pledged to do all we can to to maintain our noise ordinance. Noise ordinance. I'm going to be looking at all the alternatives and options available to ensure that the quality of life film in our neighborhoods is protected. And then we strike that balance because we do have an airport. We and we do have an obligation in that regard as well. I recognize that. I'm looking forward to hearing from the rest of my colleagues in the public. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember I'm sorry, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you. Jesus. The discussion has already taken so long. I lost track of where we're at. But. But bear with me. If. If I. My question is, get a little redundant. Because, like I say, that there's some points of clarification even in some of those that we've already discussed that that I didn't hear. And perhaps I want a little bit better clarification on those. But I have to agree with my colleague, Councilmember Austin, with the in regard to a surprise, especially when it comes down to timing. Timing is everything when it comes to issues like this. Here we are in the midst of a study to look at a customs facility and then we get a report that says we have to add nine additional flights. The timing on that couldn't have been worse or better in that regard because we're looking at the impacts of what a customs facility will do to our airport. At the same time, we're being told that we have to add nine flights because planes are getting quieter. So it doesn't it doesn't really make sense. And there's anything that a local official, especially me, that I don't like, is surprises. And frankly, this came as a surprise to us, and it it really threw us back in regards to what we're going to be dealing with in the next few months as the Customs facility study comes forward. So one of the things that I think that's out there that wasn't very clear and I think that needs a better clarification for the community because there's this misunderstanding or disconnect with the noise ordinance and what that means with the amount and the number of flights. A lot of people confused. The noise ordinance has been one set and the flights being another. In other words, that the 41 flights that we have is the maximum when in reality it's the minimum. So we have to look at and we're talking about as planes are getting quieter, that provides the opportunity for the airport or for us as a city to increase the number of flights. So I think that that needs to be made very clear to those who are most of all engaged in this in this discussion, but those who are affected by it as well. We need to understand that where we're at right now in terms of this mandate, if you will call it a mandate. Apparently, that's what we're at. To airline flights it go up to 50 is something that's a major concern. Having said all that, is there a limit? As planes get quieter, as as we add these nine flights, more planes will be quieter. Is there a maximum? We know the 41 is a minimum. Is there a maximum number of flights that we can realistically add over the next year or two years, whatever, whatever length of time it takes? The ordinance itself doesn't set forth a maximum, it leaves it open ended. But as a practical matter, there would be a maximum because it's still ultimately tied to the noise budget that was established in 1989, 1990. I don't know what the exact number would be as a maximum. As I indicated when we looked at this issue in the airport expansion E.R. in 2006, when the acoustical analysts looked at it, they projected maybe 11, but it could go a little bit higher than that. It just depends really on how quiet the aircraft get. And you know what? Our fleet mix is out of the airport. Now, in the previous questioning, there was a discussion about the the types of planes that are currently coming in or are in use at the Long Beach Airport. What was specifically mentioned about the the MD 80 versus the A320, which is the quieter plane and I'm looking at page four of the of the presentation where the MD 80 and the B737 Dash 400 is a borderline when you start with the 80. With the B737, they started getting quieter and we go all the way down to the A320. Would there be a prerequisite, if you will, a requirement for any airline that would be considering having some flights added to Long Beach as a destination or departure point to use the acquired planes? We can't recall. When can we do it? Can we legally do that? That's a good question there. We can't legally discriminate against any carrier that's certificated by the FAA as being able to carry passengers or cargo. But what we can do, and it was indicated in the presentation, if hypothetically when we advertise for the nine supplemental slots, one carrier came in and said, I want all nine slots. And by the way, I'm going to fly all MD eighties. We would have our acoustical engineer look at that scenario and based on what he has told us thus far, we would be able to ratchet down the number of slots that would be allocated to bring us within the budget. We don't anticipate that happening because there aren't that many MDs out there actually being flown by major air carriers. But we would ratchet down the number if the louder planes applied. Now there was a reference made to Allegiant that did that one time fly a Long Beach and fly in the eighties. Apparently, they still have some in their in their in their inventory of planes. And, of course, that would be welcome back. But if could we tell them. Yeah, but not with your MD 80. So, Councilman, you're wrong. The answer is that we we could not require them to operate the MD 80 or anything other than in the 80 or to prohibit the MD 80 from coming into the market. But as I mentioned. Allegiant now has other aircraft types in their fleets, which one of which we are very familiar with the A320, and they also have several A319 aircraft. They have 25 of those aircraft in their fleet today. They have already executed agreements to purchase an additional 25 of those A319 A320 aircraft, which will join their fleet over the next two years. So they will have approximately 50 A319 and A320 aircraft in the fleet, which will be equal to or greater than the number of MD 80 is that they're operating by the end of 2017. So clearly that's an airline that has evolved, that has taken on an aircraft type that is much more environmentally friendly. And I would fully expect that if Allegiant did state interest in returning to the market, that they would state that service would be operated by one of their Airbus aircraft. But at the present time, we don't exactly know. If we put those nine slots out there, that they will be. That they will be accepted. Do are there. Has there been any interest up to this point expressed by any of the airlines in saying, yeah, we'd like to look into those 9 to 9 or to our core services? When we open up the allocation period, which is a 30 day window, that will be the opportunity for the airlines to submit interest in writing. And at that time, they would have to also indicate what aircraft type they intend to utilize for those slots in the market. And just for purposes of argument, let's say that all nine slots are not are not filled. Are we still how would we be out of compliance? We did not feel all nine flights. All nine slots. No. We would not be out of compliance if there were any slots remaining within those that were made available for allocation, they would remain available for the remainder of the existing 12 month period, which would run through September 30th. And then we would conduct this annual analysis again to determine whether those slots would remain available based upon the cumulative noise levels as a result of the 516 analysis. Okay. One more line of questioning. There was a discussion also about the closing down of some of the runways for maintenance purposes. Is a noise ordinance suspended during that period of time? And is is it generally is a jet part of general information to the airlines that there's a runway? There's got to be no doubt that a runway is closed. There has to be that kangaroo for you can't fly into a runway and. In repair. But. But tell him mostly about the noise ordinance. It is suspended during that period of time. Well, how does that work? Yes, sir. We will have Mr. Ron Reeves, our noise and environmental officer, respond to that question. Yes. Councilman, the the airlines are made aware of runway closures through a procedure called no towns notices to airmen. And our operations department distributes these to the the FAA. And that that does go to to all the airlines. During the period. When we do have runway closures, the requirements or the noise levels associated with the runways are exempt. For example, during the nighttime hours, runway 1230 is the only runway that's in use if it is closed for maintenance. On those rare instances, runway two five right may be used. We do not have noise levels applicable to air carriers for runway 25. Right. However, these these occurrences are very rare. Okay. Now, there was also discussion about the appeal process. Does that start immediately or is there does the appeal start after the ninth slots are announced as being made available? Because when you arrange it, that's part of the airport's allocation protocol. And basically, we would set a time period in which the appeal period would run and it would be initially a 15 day appeal period, and we would make that known to both the air carriers and the public. So if anyone did want to appeal it, if they felt that the noise studies were somehow incorrect, they could definitely bring that to the airport directors attention. Now, that would be for the whole budget of nine, nine flights. We would do it. We would do it at one time. We would make an announcement that there were nine supplemental slots available. And we would also indicate to the public and the air carriers what the time period would be and how to file an appeal. Okay. Well, thank you for your responses. I know it takes a lot of patience. We have a lot of questions and sometimes they get redundant. But yeah, I'm definitely very concerned about the the afternoon surprise, if you will, on this issue. And of course, you know, we are looking at a community that is very concerned about what this additional pattern for the airport, what that would bring to the to the noise ordinance and its compatibility and its ability to stay within within the limits. We understand that it's quieter planes are made available, that there's probably going to be an opportunity to increase flights. But we want to make sure that it's done in a in a strategic and in a very responsible manner for our community so that their quality of life is not that much affected. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions that Councilwoman Mongeau brought up earlier regarding helicopter noise. I know that's not directly related to this adding of the new slots, but how does helicopter noise impact the noise bucket and what control, if any, does the city have in regards to that? Helicopter noise when it is associated with our typical flight paths along the runway over the noise monitors is included in our general aviation noise bucket. So that to say that helicopters are excluded is not entirely correct. However, air helicopters typically use our helicopter corridors rather than the runways. Okay. And do you think that additional airplane traffic could impact the request that helicopters fly at a higher altitude, as has been discussed? This request will not impact helicopter altitudes. It will not in any way change our fixed wing traffic patterns or the ability to modify those patterns in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Council members who were not. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. Before I start, just like to acknowledge some of our airport advisory commissioners in the audience tonight. Thank you for being here. My first question is regarding. I'll just follow up on on a point that councilmember you're on a brought up about allegiant and flying an older louder aircraft. My briefing my very first briefing. I think, Mr. Francis, you told me that if there were a violation, we were talking about hypotheticals here. If there were a violator in of that nature, they would be the first to be booted out. Can you explain that a little bit? That is correct. If at the end of the 12 month noise year and the preceding noise analysis was conducted and it determined that we, in fact, had gone above the noise budget limit, then we would take a look at the additional flying that was made available through this allocation of slots . And in essence, the operator with the noisiest aircraft would be the first one that we would contact to reduce the number of slots available. So that is correct, Councilman. Okay. Thank you. Then I have a question about noise monitors. So I think they should probably be directed to Ron Reeves. We list monitors on nine and ten and ten is in the fourth Council District. If there are will, we know there are other monitors that don't function all the time. For instance, there's one in the art craft manor neighborhood on Quincy Avenue between BURNETT and Vernon Mysteries. How does that affect this calculation? The other monitors do not directly affect these calculations other than noise. Data from those other monitors is used to verify the noise levels at nine and ten. Okay. Thank you. Also customary raga. How do we characterize the phone call from the city manager? But it was a Saturday afternoon phone call. Okay. Afternoon. Surprise. Thank you. Upon getting that phone call, I actually requested and got a meeting in less than 18 hours. So Director Francis, Assistant City Attorney Mays and actually city attorney Charles Parkin and I met in city attorney's office on Sunday morning at 10 a.m.. So I was probably the first councilmember to be briefed. I'm not sure if anyone got there earlier than I, but I think that's how it worked out. At that. Time. Mr. Francis, explain to me then exactly what he's saying tonight, that all of the slots were calculated on a on a noise value. That and I'll just ask. Nothing changed in between that point and tonight. No, sir. Okay. So I'd like to ask a question just about the Landrum report and just one sentence. I'm not understanding how this sentence comports with what we're seeing tonight, and that is the first part of the sentence. I am fine with the reason the budget numbers are well below the permitted levels is due to the reduction the number of noisier aircraft. Now, here's the part that I question and the fact that the airport operated well below the permitted number of daily air carrier flights. That seems to be kind of the opposite of what we're saying here. So you figured that out. You had the lander report before we met that very first day. So how does how does this make sense to you? Ask Mr. Reese to respond to that, please. Yes, Councilman. Super not the. I understand from what is indicated in the report that the reason our existing noise levels are as low as they are is because of the fleet mix, the quieter aircraft types, as well as the low number of flights. That's in response to our current noise levels. Our future noise levels, though, were calculated based on a 95% utilization of all slots, which Director Francis has indicated is very conservative. Okay. Then that is the explanation. It's not semantics. It's just that we're talking about two different topics. Is it does that comport with the way you're saying it? The well is not factored into that sentence, is the theoretical calculation if every slot were filled. That's my understanding. Caltech. Okay, great. Thank you. That's all I have. Thanks. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. My comments will be brief. Director Francis, question Does the ordinance prevent you from consulting with the airport convention commission or the city council prior to making this decision? I will ask Mr. Mays to respond to that, please. It certainly wouldn't prevent the airport director from doing a study session such as we're doing tonight or with the Airport Advisory Commission. But the airport ordinance makes it very clear that is the decision of the airport director to make based on consultation with this noise consultants. Right. I would have to just say that, you know something is this major? In the time I've served, in the short time I've served on the council or have worked on the 14th floor, I mean, it's a pretty major decision. And again, to get to have no don't no notice and get a call on a Saturday, it seems. It was a bit shocking for that to happen. I would say if the ordinance doesn't if it does not jeopardize our ordinance to be to air on the side of inclusion or transparency. My guidance here would be we should air on that side. Moving forward, we all have airport commissioners and, you know, I have an airport commissioner that you know, I have an airport commissioner in District nine that's, you know, pretty engaged. And he actually submits a report to the city council after every single meeting. And and I checked with him to say, did you know that this decision was going to come? He said, I've seen the numbers. I'm not surprised. But not even we were notified that we were heading in that direction. So I would just offer and hopefully it's received, I would just offer that we can go. It goes a long way to the community to bring the council along through this process. Thank you. Customer? Richardson If I might, I just wanted to say thank you for those comments, but also to state the fact that this process moved along from the latter part of October through the latter part of November, and not until just literally a couple of days before you were contacted did we have the final information. We brought the city manager into the understanding of the situation, and he very soon thereafter made the mayor and council aware of that. So I just wanted you to know that it was not something that was delayed or that we we did not share with the commissioners or the council with that knowledge well in advance. We actually went through the process just over the last several excuse me, several weeks. Thank thank you. I would say and I'm glad that the city manager did respond and call when he did. I think it would be good that if you knew that this study was going to come back in advance, if the council knew, hey, potentially in December, there will be a study, we will have the final results. We do this every year. And based on those results, we may or may not make a decision that that notification would have gone a long way. But I do appreciate the diligent dilutions matter. Thank you. With that, we're going to turn this over to public comment. So if you have any public comment, please come forward on this item and make sure you introduce yourself and your address, please. Oh. And just as a reminder, this is a study session. This is not in a. There's not an agenda item attached to this. Please begin. Yes. Because of my name's Larry Boland. Address on file. I was a member of the Portland Five-O study 25 years ago. And I'd like to tell you that this item was never, ever discussed. Those of us who were there, it had so many come up and said, you know, down in the future when we finally quiet this airport down and get rid of the noise pollution. If we don't if we get too quiet, we're going to add some pollution back into the equation. It's just ridiculous. Let me tell you. We were not interested in what the noise bucket was. The noise bucket does not wake people up in the morning. The noise bucket doesn't pour noise. Pollution into our schools affect our property values. The noise bucket is simply something that the government came up with. What we feel as human beings is the noise event. And by the way, folks, you kept talking about 41 flights and nobody brought up the fact that a flight is an arrival and a departure. 81 flights, 81 noise events, rather. That's what we listen to. Nobody here tonight even said that nine is not nine flights is nine flights, but it's not 18 noise events. And JetBlue sitting on ten. Well, we had nine. Come on, guys. What's going on here? And nobody would ever have thought that where we have a single event noise level of around 100 DB, which was S.E.A.L. Single event noise of level. That was 25 years ago. That's how old that noise level that we're using today is. It's antiquated. It's obsolete. For us to right now, the JetBlue A320 leaves at about 83 DB. Do you know what that level is it at 100? Every three decibels is 100% increase. The noise levels that we have set now were 600%. That noise level 600% above what the JetBlue does. But at the time, we made it with all the seven 2017 dedication of DC night, it was right at where it was bought, where it was. In other words, it wasn't 600% away. It was right near where the level was. Why haven't we been reducing it so we can enjoy the technological advances that have come from the quieter airplanes? By the way, we also didn't talk about the noise that is not counted at the airport, the thrust reverse noise, the helicopter noise, the engine run up noise. The private. Thank you, sir. Time's up. Okay. I'm sorry. No problem. But I just am flabbergasted at this. This event. And we never heard it. This was never brought before the Portland Five-O study. Thank you, sir. That I recall. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Joe Sopko hushed two neighborhoods. First, Mr. Mayor. City Council members and staff. I. I really appreciate all the questions that the City Council brought up. Thank you for doing that, asking those questions. You know, it's obvious to Mr. Francis that the neighborhoods are sensitive about the number of flights, the noise it makes when they're woken up at night. We're sensitive to that. And to drop this on us, on you at a Saturday afternoon. Reflects. On how Mr. Francis treats us. Now we're you're. You're talking about an appeal process. Is there an appeal process to relieve Mr. Francis of his job? Mr. Francis, since he's come into office, we've all gone up and introduced ourselves and. And it's obvious that he sees US neighborhood representatives as the enemy. And that's what we get from him. I want you to know that. So if he is to represent the airport, represent you, he's doing a very poor job. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Barbara showing. 4120 Locust Avenue. And I was a member of the hash one committee years ago and I was glad that the question of international flights came up. I know it's not on the agenda tonight. It's on the agenda next week. But my question is, would international so these new nine flights could be domestic or they could be international? And what about private international flights that might come in and use the same runway? How would all that additional sound be calculated? So what we're going to do is we're going to make a note of that question and we're going to ask it right after one of the customers will ask that right after the public comment. Okay. And one other one other question, and that is when. And I remember the noise footprints of the very, very noisy planes. So now the Douglas Boeing is not sending any more big planes out. And I presume that they also impacted the noise calculation question mark. Maybe you could answer that as well. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. I'm David Raichlen at 4300 Cerritos Avenue. And Mr. Mayor. Council members. Staff, thank you so much for. Letting us speak. I'm a. Medical doctor. And I. Also work in the entertainment industry. And we mix audio. For motion pictures and for home use. At 85 decibels. So we don't let things. Get louder than. That certain operators might. What that means is that if you look at the noise level of a single event of 95 decibels, it means that you can't hear what we're mixing. And this is for movies and TV shows. That have. Explosions. And loud arguments. Those become inaudible when those events happen. So that gives you a sense of how. Loud it still is, even though there's been progress made. Also, since I work on this, it's not just the inconvenience of having. Things rendered inaudible. It's also. That. I have to stop work. We can't have. Conversations. Each of these events are disruptive. Also, as a physician, I can tell you that stress comes not. From single events unless they're truly extreme, but from the repetition. So the more. Loud events we have, the more stressful it becomes. So adding these slots and keeping it under the noise bucket misses the point. And the Court of Appeals understood this. When they said. That the annoyance factor. Was more important than the total amount of noise. Uh, I'm also really concerned that our standard goes back. So far in time that. It no longer represents the the world that we actually live in. Yes, technology. Has improved, but the purpose of that technology, of having less noise. Isn't to allow us. To have more noise. Things were made quieter. Because that was the goal, to make things quieter. So there's clearly something wrong with a law that says that we have to make the problem. Worse because technology. Has gotten better. This does not. Compute. Okay. Now. One other point that I think it's important to to think about is the way that the noise. Levels are measured is at two points. Statistically, that's not a real good sample. We'd like to get more than that than two. Points to measure. And especially because the way sound travels can. Vary so much with. Temperature. And other. Environmental conditions. So thank you and good evening. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Laurie Smith. I live in the third district. I'm a new resident of Bluff Park neighborhood. And I started looking at this when I moved in and about two years ago. Today, I guess we're we're discussing the noise budget analysis and the goal of the Long Beach Airport noise ordinance is to ensure that incompatible residential land use in the vicinity of the airport are not exposed to aircraft noise levels greater than 65 C an L and there's no noise monitors located along the main helicopter routes. This means that the noise ordinance is flawed if it's based on cumulative numbers. I posit that the reason our noise levels are so low is because we are not responsibly nor accurately recording all of Long Beach aircraft noise events, specifically helicopter corridors. So I know that you've been talking a lot about daily commercial flights coming in, but I'm talking about what Long Beach residents are experiencing besides major commercial flights. I'm taking a look at an analysis of helicopter operations that were done by the Long Beach Airport. They did a short term study and it involved two two helicopter overflights at 500 feet, which is what we experience on a daily basis. And these were taken at Man Elementary School. The sound exposure level was 82 DBA and 83 DBA. And I think the gentleman just before me was talking about a jet taking off at the airport at 85. So if you guys are okay with having that go over elementary schools on a daily basis, that's great. Also, this is one of the world's busiest airports in terms of general aviation activity, and that includes helicopter operations. We have way too many helicopter training, way too many fixed wing aircraft training going on at this airport. And you adding more flights really concerns me. I'd like for you guys to take a look at the noise monitors along our main helicopter, our main helicopter routes. According to this analysis of helicopter operations that was done by the Long Beach Airport, there's 16,000 flights, over 16,000 flights done. And a third of them, according to this report, were along the Redondo corridor. So I'm not very good at math, but I think that somewhere around 5200, 5400. So if we do that and we're looking at 82 or 83 DBA, I'm kind of wondering what the analysis is on this. So I just like some responsibility done here today and for some more analysis to be done with regards to the cumulative numbers. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. John Slattery, Long Beach Neighborhoods, First Mayor, City Council. Thank for the opportunity to speak in relation to this. I just have a couple of questions that I guess you guys will answer at the end. The first one is clarify the must versus May. As it relates to that, we must add these flights versus May cause as I read the ordinance, it basically says that we must evaluate it. But if the director feels that this may actually increase beyond that, we should not actually add those flights. But listening earlier they made it sound like, no, we still have to add it no matter what. The reason I ask that I just did some quick calculations and I guess, you know, trying to look at the LBE report and the other company that took a look at this trying to understand that's very difficult for a layman . I just took a quick look, though, and Slide five and took a rough average of these newer planes because they're so much quieter. So their rough average is 92.2, a single noise event. So if you calculate that for Monitor nine, that's one of 1.475, just below just below the one or two. I think that the noise ordinance calls for. So when you. Guys calculated. For these additional flights, obviously you're just throwing a number in there. Hey, here's what the single noise was like. So my question is, were those just applied to the 7 to 11 or were they are 7 to 10? Or they also applied some to the ten and beyond because a lot of those are calculated at a higher rate and may change that. So that's kind of stuff I'd like to know. Thank you. Thank you. Makes me complete. Hi. Hi. My name is Good Luck. And Gary from. And I would past president of the Bixby Hill Community Association. And just a private homeowner. At the present moment, I had the pleasure of hosting 58 meetings regarding this airport in my home. In the period of time before the airport was remodeled. Represented from the city representative from the community and various other interested people who attended those meetings. I also served on the committee that designed the airport. And Ken had several meetings there. And I might tell you that you better look at the amount of slots or gates that you have to accommodate these nine additional aircraft, really. 18. And the the problems that they create pollution wise, besides the sound, if you didn't know it back at that time, I don't know what it is now. But Los Altos had the highest red cancer rate in Southern California, according to the Red Cross. Now, these planes are going to add impact more than just sound. They're going to end pack particles going into the air and everything else. So just to merit this increase, just to satisfy the requirements of the of the. Sound thing you're dealing with here is not really what it's all about. Can the airport handle are they all going to be passengers? What's the pollution of people getting to and from the airport? This all mushrooms into a big cloud of malarkey. So I would just like to tell you that there's more to it than just sound. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Ray Gable, eighth District. I had the privilege of representing the eighth District. And during that time, as Mr. Mays referred to earlier, there was a 2006 report that stated that we would be able to allow a maximum of 11 additional flights. And and the report said if there were absolutely no violations, I'd sure like to see a copy of that and make sure I'm quoting it correctly. But they said if there were no noise violations, which is very, very much unheard of. And I'm going to say that because the next thing I'm going to share with you is that in JetBlue, just JetBlue violated the noise ordinance 64 times in 2013, 49 times in 2014 and 12 times in the first quarter of this year. The complaints for September of 2015 totaled 1423, and since May 2015, that number of complaints was never under 1100. So statistically, and I'm just going to say welcome to my world, because you're going to see what happens with the community as all of the airport issues begin to unfold. 1983, when the City of Long Beach was sued by over 30 airlines, and then then it was limited. Our noise ordinance limited it to 32 flights. The airlines said that our noise ordinance was unlawful and it was appealed again in 1990 to the Court of Appeals. And I'm going to read this to you, because a gentleman just referred to it, but it says that limits the number of daily air carriers to 32. As the district court found, the total noise produced by 32 flights could vary significantly depending upon what sort of planes were used. Thus, the District Court concluded that the choice of the number 32 was arbitrary. What the ordinance seeks to accomplish, however, is not simply the limitation of noise for its own sake. Rather, it seeks to limit the annoyance that residents experience as a result of the airport's operation. It is not unreasonable to believe that the number of times the disturbance occurs could be as relevant as the cumulative noise created by the total number of such disturbances. Now there's a legal formula that you formula that you have to follow. And, you know, if if the legal representatives feel that it's important that you do this, I would urge you, if compliance is of concern, that you do it gradually. You don't jump up to fill the bucket to get to the very top of what was allowed previously. And you've heard a couple of other folks refer to why would you do this to impact in a negative way the quality of life for the residents? If you have an opportunity to to balance both sides, it's a slippery slope. I hope that you pay attention and that you make your decisions wisely. Thank you. Thank you. And are thank our final speaker for study session one. My good evening my name is Bill. Get a lottery. I live in the eighth district at 4465 Cerritos Avenue. And I just have another brief follow up question really. And I hope that you will take over that question from me and ask it later. There are a lot of concerns, health concerns, stress, heart disease, pollution for the lungs. And and so we really don't want to take this decision lightly. And so it comes down to. Must. We accept all these negative potential and current negative consequences, or do we have a choice? And I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything tonight that convinces me that we must. In fact, I have heard phrases such as, I'm just going to look at providing the opportunity to add flights that doesn't sound like must. In fact, you're a noise specialist. The letter that was read doesn't say anything but must either. It says, Let's see. Sorry, the consultants I quote, the flight slots could be added. And in fact, that this is the subject of your discussion. All these all that verbiage indicates to me that there is a choice. So I would appreciate it if one of you. Could ask or maybe Mr. Maes might just volunteer. It. Where is where are the words in the in the in the noise ordinance? Specifically, he says it's explicitly stated maybe he can read it to us or point us to that part. Secondly, we worry about being incompetent or finally, worry about being in compliance with the ordinance. I have another question. We are allowing JetBlue to under under utilize the flights. I would think that that might be a question for compliance, too. Maybe you should ask, do we make ourselves open to any kind of lawsuit here? Because we are allowing I know it's by agreement and it's JetBlue is not breaking the law, but we are the ones who agreed to that to that rule. We are allowing them to under utilize. So therefore, we are not allowing other airlines the maximum opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker will take it back to the council after this. Thank you, Shirley Broussard. Previously, I was a resident of District nine at 6320 Myrtle Avenue. When God called me into service of the homeless. I took up residence in my SUV, and I've traveled just about every district in the city. Having moved in this city to 1990. In 1997. I have worked with the homeless community. And they live outside. Let me apologized to each of you Council men and women. Because you're taking up a special interest here. So I apologize on behalf of us. I was looking to purchase property on Ocean Avenue. As I get ready to move into housing again after being on the mission field for seven years. And this is related to the. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Not one time have I heard any homeless person complain about the noise. Any homeless people here tonight? Have you lived with any have you worked with any? Not one of them have ever complained. Above the noise ordinance. If God allows me, I intend to be somewhere in the in Europe or Canada for Christmas. And I'm going get on that plane and I'm like, even wonder who I'm waking up. How many of you are like me? You're going to be guilty during the holiday. You're going to climb on that plane. And you won't even wonder one minute who is being bothered by you sitting on that plane with all that noise. And, you know, I'm right community. And so we sit here tonight complaining about the noise that we sydnor our condos. Our mansions. Our million dollar pieces of property. The noise. We're complaining about the noise. And not one of the homeless people that I have service in seven years have ever complained about the noise. Then there's the kind of weird family community. That may seem kind of strange to you that you're complaining about the noises. You can't hear you commercials because the planes are blocking out the sound volume on your TVs. Oh, come on, now. Come on. This is Christmas. This is Hanukkah. We feel a little guilty, at least for four weeks. Commission. Airport Commission. I apologize to you, whoever you are. I don't know you. But this is your job. But it's comical. This is where we had a comedy relief tonight. If you think you are just another speaker, come forward. That's okay. Just. Okay. Sorry about not leaving as a finish, but no worries. Unfortunately, I'm going to complain about the noise. You got to give us your name for that. For the. Record. I'm Sterling Reagan. I'm currently residing in the 4300 Cerritos Avenue. Uh, so, um, I just wanted to make a comment about this whole study session. So, um. Uh, Mr. Franklin, you were talking about the noise level. And for 11 years, I've attended school here in the Long Beach District. And for 11 years, these noise events have occurred. And honestly, I don't even know if it has affected me physically. I doubt it has. But, uh, it it just seems like it doesn't make sense to add even more. Now, the events are really bothersome. And to add more because it's more effective doesn't make sense to me. Why? Why, why even need to add more events in the first place? Um, so that's what I wanted to say. And thank very much. Thank you very much. We're going to take this back to the council closed public comment for for the study session. Just a couple of things. And I want to hopefully we can get some of the questions that were answered answered as well. Um, you know, one thing I just want to say and, and, and first, I think it's important to acknowledge for everyone that there's no question that this conversation and this process actually affects people, affects people's quality of life and those that are living, particularly those under the flight path. It's a real issue. And so while it's for for many folks and I know for for staff, we're going through an administrative legal process. I get the fact that I think most people get the fact that for a lot of people, this is a real big issue and a huge quality of life issue for them. So I just want to put that out there. This is an important issue. And for some folks, this is the most important, most important issue that the the noise ordinance was discussed by a few folks. And I just want to say something. You know, it's interesting, the ordinance, while it is this kind of incredible legal document that limits and provides the airport some limits as well. It also has a lot of challenges. And one of the difficulties with our our noise ordinance, while it it literally we are one of a handful, not even a handful of cities that has this type of ordinance in. It has been a point of pride, I think, for our community. It's something that we treasure because we are we have such a built out environment around our airport. It's so important to protect it at the same time in in its construction. One of the major flaws is our ability to then modify the ordinance post adoption. And I see Council Councilman Gavlak shaking her head and here is the challenge. And so when when we talk about, well, you know, why didn't we make changes or should we have change the noise, the noise levels or the allotment? The truth is, is any changes to a grandfathered document could put the noise ordinance in grave jeopardy. And instead, instead of having a conversation about 41 flights or 50 flights, we're talking about 100 flights because we don't have a protective ordinance. And I just want to reconfirm with our city attorney, because you and I have had a lot of conversations a. Changing the ordinance or having making adjustments to it could essentially put our noise ordinance in major risk. And we had done it in the past or in the future. Yes, I mean, that's correct. And that's why I think why the council has never changed or amended this ordinance since 1995. So I just want to mention that the other thing I think is important to note, and I think it's frustrating for a lot of folks, it's frustrating for people up here. They say that as part of the the deal that was put together by JetBlue and as a reminder, listen, when when JetBlue came in, there was a lot of turmoil at the airport. There was a lot of issues about its future. They came in, they built out an operation. They were welcomed by the city, by many folks, not not by by everyone, but by many folks. And as far as the the legal framework that we created for the amount of flights they had to fly, there were some discussions about, well, you know, I think Councilman Austin called it what was that slot squatting? Okay. There was some conversation about about slot squatting. The whether we know whether we like it or not, they are operating in this legal framework that we created for them in the past. And so the issue is that there's concern by a lot of people. Will they why aren't they before we start talking about new flights, they're not even, you know, not even maximizing what they've been allotted. And I think while we a lot of folks would love for them to before we have this discussion, for them to actually fill that slot, they are operating in the legal framework that we provided . And so we're not allowing them to fly or not fly. They are flying what they can within the legal framework we provided. And it's not we can tell them, you know, flier slots all day and all night, but they have the legal right to do that. And so that is, I think, as we move forward. Mr. Mays and I had asked you this before as we develop this next set, I think we have to just be conscious of the lessons learned from the last time we did this and just ensure that we are being kind of thoughtful and progressive in how we do this next set and what the protections are going to look like, you know, moving forward for regardless of who uses these sites. I have a question about also. The. The process of who gets the slots, because I think what I would I hope most folks are hearing is this is and I know, unfortunately for a lot of the residents, an administrative process. And one thing that I asked Mike and Charlie is, is it your, you know, 100% legal opinion that we have to fill the slots or the noise ordinance is in jeopardy? And your response has been consistently. That is correct. I think what you're saying, though, is, Phil, unless we have to make the slots available. Correct. I'm sorry. Make the slots available because they may or may not could fill depending on the demand. My question is, is how? When the slots are. Let's say we go through the process here. X amount of slots at nine slots. And there's interest from current carriers and perhaps new carriers. How do you how do you make the determination of a who has been good neighbors that are maybe currently in already at our airport or B, what the potential is for another carrier to come in and provide a different service? Or is it purely on a lottery random system? And can you can we go into a little bit of that detail? And I think that's important. Merits it's a little bit of a combination of that the way it would work under the allocation process. A new entrant at the airport would have the opportunity to get two slots before an incumbent carrier would be allocated one. And the idea behind that is the thought being that a new entrant would need at least two slots to make a viable presence at the airport. So any new entrant that would apply would be eligible for two. But other than that, it's basically strictly a lottery if and it really depends on how many applications we get. If we get one application and they want four slots and that's it, they would be allocated four slots. If we get five carriers that each want two slots, we would have to do a lottery. And when we've done lotteries before, not for supplemental slots because we've never allocated them, but for our regular slots, we literally draw names out of a hat and progress until the slots are allocated in accordance with what they've submitted in their application. And I thank you for that. However, is there not at some point in that slot allocation, aren't there interests of the city business, business decisions that are made? And what I mean by that is, you know, if it is in the interests of the airport to ensure that we have a diversified. Pool of carriers. And that's obviously a determination that the airport director would would make. Can that not be considered as part of the allocation? The way the allocation rows a resolution is structured? It can't be. It's simply if they qualify legally as an air carrier, they're properly certificated by the federal government, then they're eligible to apply. And it's kind of a catch 22 sometimes with the FAA, because when we allocated the 27 slots that we allocated to JetBlue in 2003, we did not feel that the FAA would have an issue with that because prior to that time, no one was flying at the airport, even though we had a red team trying to get folks to fly at the airport. But the FAA did have an issue with that. And they've since told us that we cannot illegally discriminate among the carriers. So. Based on the input that we have received from them over the years, we are going to do the allocation as a random draw. Making them the offer is fine if we make it available to every other carrier, whether they're an incumbent or not. And so we won't run afoul of any of the FAA regulations if we do that, even if JetBlue or one of our other incumbent carriers actually applies for and gets some slots. Okay. And then I just want to also make sure that I think we know what you're hearing from some of the community. And I've talked and I've had a chance to talk to a lot of folks about this issue, is clearly they're moving forward on this. I think the slot allocation process is really important. It's done incredibly transparent. And I'm looking, you know, Mr. City attorney, you know, and you know, Charlie and we've talked about this is I think that the the community will feel a lot more confident knowing that that process is airtight. It's very clearly spelled out how we're doing it prior to the process. We know exactly, you know, who is what the interest is. And the process is then transferring not just for the community's interest, but I think for the carriers that are interested. I'm hopeful. I'm not sure legally what what, what, what can or cannot be public. I understand there's but I think the more that can be, I think we should push for for that. There's nothing that would prohibit us from being fully transparent and public. As I indicated, we distributed the allocation protocol to the council offline. We can put that on the city attorney's website. We will put an advertisement in the newspaper for all the public to see, probably more than one newspaper indicating when the slots will be allocated and what the process is for appeal. So and if people have questions, they can certainly call our office to ask about that process, if it's unclear when they see what how it's set out. Okay. And just and any information you can add on the or whether or not, you know, judgment can be used by our airport director or city manager on on who is selected or not. I'm just interested in in that piece because, I mean, it seems like, you know, flipping a quarter is not the not the best way to do it. But. You know, the FAA just has very tight rules against discriminating among carriers. The only judgment that could be used is what we indicated is if, let's say hypothetically, one carrier came in and indicated on their application that they were going to fly all MDs. We would immediately consult with our noise experts to find out what that would do to the budget. If it looked like an it would that would break the budget, then we would ratchet down and they were the only carry that applied. We would ratchet down the number of slots that carrier could take. Okay. Well, I mean, and Mr. Mays, I think in in that kind of that observation, I think there are other observations that we could get to in what's currently happening at the airport that we could use to for that process. And we'll explore that a little bit. So. Councilmember Ringa. Yeah. I was directed by you. Just to ask the question for me. For a lady. How lucky. Yeah, sure. I had a question related to these two slots and the potential for a Christmas facility and whether that would have or is it in the discussion. So is airport director Brian indicated there is no relationship between the FISA process and the allocation of these supplemental slots. If an FISA facility ever did come to fruition, whatever flights flew in and out of the airport that used that type of facility would have to fly within our current noise budgets and within the current slot allocation . So if there were 41 slots allocated or 45 slots allocated, an FISA would not increase the number of slots. Okay. Any other Councilman Austin? I do have one quick last question. And based on a question from one of the residents, and I think it was regarding the the methodology of the how noise is measured. I know how long have the has that system been in place and when was it last updated? We'll ask Mr. Reeves to respond to that, please. Yes counts when asked in the current system was installed as I recall in 2000 for 25. Prior to that, there was an older system installed. The system that we currently have is state of the art. We have type one microphones at each of the locations. These are the the most accurate microphones that we can have outside of a laboratory on an annual basis. We calibrate this system traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. So we have a state of the art system. Thank you. So you're confident with the measurements that we are getting from from the existing noise measurement system? Yes, sir. So so the other question was regarding runway 25. Right. And I understood the question or somebody mentioned earlier that we're not measuring noise from from that runway. Is that correct? We do measure noise at all of our runways, including runway 25. Right. However, the noise ordinance does not specify budget limits. 4 to 5, right. Because the runway is used very infrequently. So can you explain to us why that particular runway is used so infrequently? I mean, we have a runway, and as I've studied and looked into to five. Right. It is is longer than John Wayne Airport's one runway and several others large airports across the country. It's a it's a it's a runway that could be utilized that could, I should say, fairly distribute noise from the airport. Why don't we use that runway more often? Yes, Councilman, that's that's an excellent question. The ordinance does not explicitly state. That runway to five, right. Should not be used. However, runway 1230 is designed as our primary air carrier runway. It is the only runway that has noise, budget limits, cumulative noise, budget limits associated with it. The other runways do not have cumulative noise budget. Runway 1230 is also built out to specifications designed for routine air carrier use in terms of pavement, strength, instrumentation, instrument, landing system, etc., the other runways. That's that's not true for they're designed for infrequent use. Runway 25, right. For example. On a standby basis when runway one two, three zero is is not available. So the brand new runway two five. Right. That we have is not equipped to deal with frequent flights. It is not the pavement strengthening instrumentation. The runway was not designed. For routine use. And the noise ordinance essentially designates runway 12330 as the primary air carrier runway. All right. Thank you. We'll revisit that. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Our Tribal Council member, Austin. Got my questions. Thank you. Councilmember Supernanny. If I could just follow up on one final question. The one that John Dilatory brought up regarding the legal issue of must versus May, I think. I don't think you can answer that unless you try to quantify it in some way. Would staff be able to say, I think the quantification or qualification might be in terms of by not adding these flights? What is the threat to the noise ordinance? And to put that in context, how would that threaten the noise earnings versus building an FAA facility in the threat to noise ordinance? Would you would you have outside legal opinions on that? We do have outside legal opinions as to whether or not the ordinance is mandatory and the outside legal opinion is clearly that it is mandatory, which coincides with the opinion that has been developed over not just the city attorney, but all of the city attorneys that have been dealing with this since 1995. We've tried to put together historical documentation as to this ordinance when this settlement agreement was reached after the. Litigation in 1995, the press release that was put out by then, Beverly O'Neal specifically mentioned that 41 was a minimum and that over time more flights would be added. We have no doubt that this is a mandatory requirement there. As I indicated, I hope I'm answering this question correctly about the fees, but there really is no relationship between adding these slots and the request by JetBlue to consider an office facility. If an FAA facility were ever built. All of the planes that would use that facility would clearly have to comply with our noise ordinance. They would have to comply with the curfew regulations that we currently have in place. We would not increase the number of flights based solely on an office facility or a number of slots based solely on a nearby facility. Oh, and I'm sorry if you're asking, is the FISA mandatory like the ordinance? Was that part of your question? The answer is no. Okay. So you have outside an outside legal opinion that this is mandatory. Correct. There's been conjecture that the FISA facility would be of a threat to I noise ordinance building it potentially. And I realize that's an opinion now. But I'm saying we have an absolute versus an opinion. I think that's I was just trying to frame Mr. General Corey's question a little bit. I think you've answered it. Thank you. Thank you. And just just to conclude, I do. This is a this is a big issue. And I actually just need to thank both our city attorney, Mr. Parkin, Mr. Mays and the airport team, because they've actually worked just in the last month or so on. This issue is really consumed. I know, particularly Mr. Mays, who has been all over the place trying to get this thing together. And so I just want to thank you guys for the professionalism and for the information you've been getting to council. I know you've been responding to a lot of questions from council members and the community. And like Councilman Superhot said, you know, showing up at Sunday morning, early meetings and whatever you can to get everyone informed. So everyone appreciates that. And thank you all for for that. That concludes the study session. As you know, it's not an actionable agenda item. So what we're going to do now is we're going to transition back to the council where we're certainly behind tonight, as probably be expected. So we're transitioning back to the council meeting we have. We moved one item to the head of the agenda earlier, which was the El Nino presentation. So that will happen. And immediately after that, we'll go into the hearing on medical marijuana and that ordinance. And so why don't we go into why don't we do this? Why don't we do? The El Nino hearing was like a short it's just a short recess and then we'll go into the into the hearing. I'm fine with that. It's my item. Because Pat said that he wanted us. This to me, like we're going to rush it. Well. I'm going to defer to you because you really like this app information getting out there. Okay. We can be. Let let me. I know. Hold on 1/2. Mr. West, can you come here for just 1/2? You did? Yeah. We were on TV and everything this morning, so. Oh. Infamous. It is 7 minutes. It's. Okay. We're going to go right into the to this presentation, Madam Clerk, if you can read the item. Communication from Councilmember Supernova Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilwoman Price Council Member Richardson. Recommendation to request the city manager to provide an update on the city's emergency and environmental preparedness for the anticipated upcoming El Nino weather conditions.