As the rumblings of a citywide airport ballot initiative stir through our city and Jet Blue executives publicly chastise the actions of the City Council, I feel it is important to address some of the recent airport development activities and the City Council’s actions.
The council wants to see a modernized and improved airport terminal that the city can be proud of, that addresses the needs of airport security and accommodates the passengers utilizing Long Beach Airport.
What is not wanted is the "super-sizing" of the airport that will triple the existing terminal space and provide the capacity to handle more than the required number of flights determined by our city’s noise ordinance. The needs of the airport must be balanced with the impacts on our neighborhoods.
It is important to provide a little background on the issue.
The Long Beach Airport, as it stands today, is roughly 58,000 square feet and serves 41 commercial flights per day, the maximum currently allowed under the noise ordinance. The city’s flight cap also allows for 25 commuter flights per day.
In the fall of 2003, city staff presented an airport modernization project that would increase the size of the terminal to approximately 98,000 square feet. Jet Blue embraced the project, while many residents did not.
The City Council at that time asked the Airport Advisory Commission (AAC) to study the issue. In December 2004, the AAC presented to the City Council their recommendations for the airport expansion project. They offered three alternatives, with the largest being almost triple the size of the current terminal. The smallest recommended alternative was 102,000 square feet, still nearly double the size of the existing facilities.
The City Council listened to both the neighborhoods and the business community. After much public input and debate, we reached a compromise to conduct the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) study using Alternative 2 of the AAC recommendations as The Project. This alternative nearly doubles the size of the terminal, and considers an additional four aircraft parking slots, which will allow for commuter aircraft and ease irregular operations caused by mechanicals and weather delays in other parts of the country.
When an EIR is conducted, state law requires that smaller-sized alternatives, including a "no build" option, also be studied. The final decision on a project cannot be made until the findings are provided in the EIR and health studies have been completed. These reports should be completed by late 2005.
However, Jet Blue now claims that this proposal, larger than the project they supported less than two years ago, is inadequate. Instead, Jet Blue executives and supporters in the business community are considering circulating a petition to require the city to hold a special election to have a vote on the issue. By putting their expansion plan on the ballot, they would circumvent the entire environmental review process, so we would not have a full understanding of the pollution and health impacts of the airport plans.
What divisiveness will this cause within our community? More lawsuits … more taxpayer expense … more delays … less progress towards the ultimate goal of modernizing our airport terminal to serve the traveling public.
Additionally, recent comments made in this paper by a Jet Blue executive require clarification on the selection process of the concessionaire at the Long Beach Airport.
The process to receive bids to operate and improve the concessions at the airport began more than ten months ago. Thirteen different organizations have submitted their statements of interest and are patiently awaiting the next step in the process for selection. The awarding of this contract is expected in June.
The objections raised were to a secondary selection process, eligible only to interested parties currently in place at the airport, that would provide a month –to- month contract until the permanent contract is awarded.
The wording of this secondary process heavily favored Jet Blue’s current concession operator and gave the impression of favoritism and perhaps a leg up on the awarding of the permanent contract.
Instead, the current concessionaire has been asked to provide additional services within the holdroom areas and has agreed to do so until the concessions contract open to all interested parties is awarded.
We have many challenges and opportunities facing our city. An expensive and divisive battle over 30,000 square feet of excess terminal space should not be one of them. A way to circumvent the environmental review process should not be one of them. Gaining a favored deal rather than competing on an even playing field should not be one of them.
We all would like to see improvements made to Long Beach Airport as soon as possible. We have pressed city staff to immediately address some of the airport inadequacies, which they are working on.
What I personally will not support, is a project that circumvents the environmental process. A project that triples the size of the airport to the detriment of our neighborhoods, and needlessly jeopardizing our city’s valued noise ordinance.
Rae Gabelich 8th District Councilmember
