Home > Track the Issues > Airport

May 7, 2008

Chamber Urges City Council To Approve Site Plan Review of Proposed Parking Structure at the Long Beach Airport

The Long Beach Chamber released the following statement by Matt Kinley, Chairman of the Board of Directors urging the City Council to approve the Site Plan Review of the proposed parking structure at the Long Beach Airport:

The Long Beach Chamber supports the staff recommendation to approve the Site Plan Review of the parking structure at the Long Beach Airport. The Chamber continues to be one of the strongest supporters of the revitalization of our airport. We support polices that further the economic potential of the airport without sacrificing the flight caps.

The Chamber recognizes city staff’s efforts since the April 15, 2008 City Council meeting in taking into account some concerns regarding the relocation of the rental car facilities to accommodate a reduction in parking spaces and the issue of pedestrian safely near the terminal. The City Council's vote to keep this project moving forward is important. Considering the fact that construction costs have increased dramatically in the last few years, we encourage the Council to move forward, without further delay, to avoid further cost increases.

Finally, the Council's support sends a message to our community that the City has the confidence in our airport as the economic driver it needs to be for our city and our region.
 

JetBlue CEO Dave Barger (standing) speaks at The Chamber’s CEO Roundtable. Also pictured (L to R): Chamber Chairman Matt Kinley, JetBlue President & COO
Russ Chu, Chamber President & CEO Randy Gordon, and Chamber Vice Chair for Public Policy Lori Lofstrom.

February 13, 2008

Long Beach Chamber Hosts JetBlue CEO Dave Barger At CEO Roundtable

Yesterday, the Long Beach Chamber hosted JetBlue CEO Dave Barger at the Chamber's 7th CEO Roundtable event at daVinci Ristorante near the Long Beach Airport. Over 30 local business leaders met with Barger for an open discussion on the future of JetBlue and their continuing commitment to the LB Airport.

"We are pleased to host such an innovative leader for a roundtable discussion on important issues impacting the aviation industry and our airport," stated Matt Kinley, Chairman of the Long Beach Chamber Board. "Dave is an outstanding leader and is 100% committed to being an active corporate citizen."

Barger announced at the roundtable event JetBlue Airways' major expansion of service in the western United States, with new premium low-fare service at Los Angeles International Airport plus new intrawest routes from other Southern California regional airports to Austin, Las Vegas, San Diego, San Jose, and Seattle, all beginning this May.

Barger also announced that JetBlue’s expansion in California also marks the West Coast debut of the airline’s brand-new EMBRAER 190 aircraft. The full-size E190, a quiet 100-seat jet, will fly select new routes from its focus city at Long Beach Airport

“It’s been nearly eight years since JetBlue launched our award-winning transcontinental service to Ontario, redefining the air travel experience while bringing humanity back to the skies,” said Barger. “Since then we’ve expanded to other regional airports including Long Beach and Burbank, attracting customers from across L.A. with low fares and uncommonly good service. Today we’re thrilled to give our growing customer base what they've been asking for: JetBlue service on more routes from the L.A. Basin. With the introduction of low-fare flights from LAX, plus added routes throughout California, JetBlue is making it easier than ever to enjoy industry-leading customer service to the East Coast, and now up and down the West Coast, too.”
 

The Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) challenge of the proposed renovations at the Long Beach Airport is yet another attempt to thwart the economic stability of one of the largest economic drivers in our city. We urge the LBUSD and the City to come to an agreement as quickly as possible so we can move forward with the renovations at the Long Beach Airport.

The future of the Long Beach Airport depends not only on the LBUSD and the City moving forward, but upon a continued investment by our airlines. The airlines have a responsibility to prove to Long Beach that our airport is vital to their continued growth as a company. To that end, JetBlue sets the standard for exceeding expectations.

This past week, JetBlue, one of Long Beach’s best corporate citizens and largest airline carrier at the Long Beach Airport and the eighth largest airline in the U.S., announced a major expansion of service throughout Southern California. Long Beach will benefit from JetBlue’s increased investment in our region’s market.

JetBlue’s Southern California expansion also marks the debut of their new EMBRAER 190 aircraft. This very quiet, 100-seat jet, will fly select new routes from the Long Beach Airport to three more destinations in response to customer demand for convenient and affordable flights within the West. Daily nonstop service from Long Beach to Austin begins May 1st, while service to San Jose and Seattle begins May 21st. All routes will operate on a mix of 150-seat Airbus A320 and 100-seat EMBRAER 190 aircraft.

JetBlue’s expansion announcement is a testament to the fact that the Long Beach Airport is relevant and important to the future economic stability of our city and region. We are proud of the 600 employees of JetBlue based out of our airport, founded 85 years ago this year. According to a recent study by CSULB Economics Professor Joe Magaddino, approximately 60% of all airline tickets sold for the Long Beach Airport are purchased by individuals or firms in Los Angeles County. Orange County accounts for 35% of all tickets sold, with other counties accounting for the remaining 5%.

Furthermore, forty-seven airport-related establishments directly employ 2,500 jobs and generate an estimated annual payroll of $116 million. It is estimated that at least 24,000 overnight visitors used the Long Beach Airport bringing our city $8.8 million in hotel expenditures and $8.1 million of expenditures in other local businesses, such as restaurants, retail, and entertainment. Additionally, flight crews had annually $2.3 million in lodging expenses and $1.4 million in food and related expenditures. Jet Blue employs over 600 crewmembers based at the airport. Jet Blue this year was ranked Top Low Cost Airline for Customer Satisfaction by J.D. Power and Associates and was also ranked Best U.S. Airline by Consumer Reports.

Let’s move forward with the planned renovations at the Long Beach Airport. Our economy depends upon it as the demand for air travel reaches new heights despite a lagging economy. JetBlue continues to set the standard in providing what Long Beach Airport customers want – more destinations to and from Long Beach and the exemplary service that comes with it. The Chamber opposes any attempt to prevent that from happening.

April 26, 2007

Long Beach Chamber Praises City Council for Moving Forward with the Airport's Revitalization

On Tuesday evening, the Long Beach City Council approved the Long Beach Chamber-supported 89,995 sq ft. Airport Terminal revitalization plan.

“The current facilities at the Airport were designed to accommodate only fifteen airline flights and the last permanent addition to the airport was done over twenty years ago,” stated Randy Gordon, President/CEO of the Chamber. “The Council’s decision to move forward with the Airport’s revitalization is one of the most important economic decisions in recent time.”

“The temporary facilities, which include tents, trailers, and mobile office structures currently in place are inconvenient and do not adequately provide the level of facilities needed for the traveling public, the citizens of Long Beach, and promote the image of California’s fifth largest city,” stated Byron Schweigert, Chairman of the Chamber Board of Directors.

The proposal before the council last night represented years of hearings and study sessions, attended by both the residential and business community alike.

September 21, 2006

Chamber Responds to Congressional Boeing C-17 Announcement

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Randy W. Gordon issued the following statement today in response to today’s Congressional announcement to fund construction of 10 additional C-17 military transport aircraft:

“I am delighted to learn that the US Congress has restored funding for this vital aircraft. The business community of Long Beach welcomes this news; we fully understand that it would not have been possible without the lobbying efforts of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as well as the local coalition of community leaders assembled by the Chamber and led by Mayor Bob Foster.

“However, at the end of the day, those lobbying efforts would have been in vein, had it not been for the tireless work of Senator Diane Feinstein and the other members of the California Congressional delegation.

“We know the C-17 is essential to the military in the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is also important here at home for disaster response and homeland security efforts. As Senator Talent correctly pointed out in today’s announcement, our nation obviously does not have the supply of C-17’s that it truly needs, otherwise, the plane would not be operating at 186-percent capacity.
 

“There are many winners in the wake of this announcement, but the biggest winner is our economy and the over 11,000 workers who rely on the production of the C-17 in our state, as well as the thousands of employees across the country.”
 

August 19, 2006

Chamber CEO Issues Statement on Boeing C-17 Program

“Due to the lack of U.S. government orders for the C-17 military cargo aircraft, the Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) is directing program suppliers to stop work on uncommitted airplanes. This move will be the first step in an orderly shut down of the production supply chain should no further orders be received from the U.S. government.

While we are disappointed by the lack of orders from the government, the Chamber views today’s announcement as an opportunity to stand with Boeing and California legislators in urging the government to place more orders. I also know we are far from the end of the flight of the C-17, as this plane is critical to the country’s aeronautical fabric. Nicknamed the Globemaster III, since it first flew in 1991 the C-17 has been valued for its ability to land on short dirt runways such as those overseas or during disaster relief. These flying warehouses played a major role airlifting supplies into areas devastated by last year's Gulf Coast hurricanes. We consider today’s announcement simply one initial step in a series of steps leading to a shutdown.

The implications of the shutdown on the economy are palpable, unless Congress authorizes new orders, the decision could trigger a ripple of job cuts nationwide, including more than 7,000 Boeing employees in Long Beach alone, and an additional 25,000 workers in 42 states that provide parts for planes still moving everything from tanks to troops around Iraq and Afghanistan. I applaud the steps that Boeing has taken to mitigate the shutdown. With the last of these air-lifters for the U.S. Air Force due to be produced in 2007, the company has committed its own money to protect the production and possible delivery of up to 22 more C-17s. Boeing is now thought to have identified customers for as many as 18 of those aircraft that will continue the production line into mid-2009: four for Australia, four for Canada, one for the UK, three more for the USAF that Congress looks set to add funding for in fiscal year 2007, as well as two for Sweden and as many as a pool of four for NATO countries. The Chamber stands with Boeing in their efforts to retain their Long Beach operation.

The Chamber views this situation through the lens of advocacy. We call upon California lawmakers to join Senators Boxer and Feinstein in educating those in Washington of the vital need to keep the C-17 program intact. It is now up to Congress and the Department of Defense to provide funding for what the nation already knows: we need this plane. In order to avoid an eventual shut down, federal action is imminent. It is our hope that President Bush will step in to make that commitment a reality. We at the Chamber will do everything within our advocacy efforts to make sure that happens.”

Background

Barring a last-minute reprieve, with a two-year lead-time for orders, Boeing will no longer spend its money to make parts and order supplies while Congress debates funding for the program. The C-17 plant is the last major airplane factory left in Southern California, which once was a center for aircraft production.

Coincidentally, Governor Schwarzenegger highlighted the importance of the 42 Enterprise Zone programs throughout the state (including Long Beach), which offer certain tax incentives to manufacturer’s and other businesses operating in economically challenged business regions.

Earlier this year, Boeing delivered its last 717 passenger jet, also built in Long Beach. An estimated 6,500 Boeing workers are linked to the C-17 program in Long Beach.

July 11, 2006

Long Beach Chamber Urges City Council Not to Rescind Airport EIR

Statement by Lori Lofstrom, Vice Chair for Public Policy

Madam Mayor and members of the Long Beach City Council.

My name is Lori Lofstrom and I am the Vice Chair for Public Policy for the Long Beach Chamber. I am here tonight in opposition to the proposed action to review last week’s decision by this council related to the Long Beach Airport EIR. I have not addressed the Council before tonight and so I welcome the opportunity to be heard on behalf of the Chamber and to participate in the process.

The EIR is a testament to the progress a community can make if they are willing to compromise to reach a decision that reflects the best thinking of the majority of stakeholders. Years of consideration and consensus building culminated in the acceptance of the EIR by this city council last week.

The Long Beach airport is a significant resource for our community as well as for the larger community of Southern California. We need to be mindful of the fact that it has served every member of the community both directly and indirectly. Like all public facilities designed and built many years ago, our Airport is badly in need of upgrades so that it can continue its record of service and security to our growing community.

There has been little argument that status quo is an unacceptable solution, that changes and improvements are needed. These improvements were defined in the EIR along with measures that assure quality, compatibility with the surrounding environment, and most important implement “best practices” in land use and building standards. Every variable has been accounted for and responsibility for prudent action has been assigned. This council did as it was charged to do--serve the community by implementing the will of the community through responsible and prudent actions.

Yet now there appears to be what one might define as, “voter remorse”.

There has been a call for a motion to rescind in direct response to political pressure asserted by a small yet vocal group who opposes the will of the community at large.

This small segment is quite willing to jeopardize all the community good, consensus building and definitive, positive action by this Council solely to serve their own narrow concerns, in total disregard for the benefits to this community. Threatening recall for targeted Council members as a means of influencing votes is unacceptable behavior and should not be dignified by a rescinding vote on the EIR.

The measure has already received support from a majority of the community and from the City Council. That should provide all of the comfort that the Council members might need to be assured that they have made the right decision. Refusing to waver from a well-considered decision simply confirms the trust that the voters placed in each of you when you were elected and will, hopefully, deter future negative political ploys that attempt to undermine this Council’s actions and determinations.

Voters don’t expect perfection or even agreement on every issue. You were elected to make decisions for the community with the understanding that they would be fair and evenly administered. You have done that in approving this EIR, and will confirm that by saying no to any reconsideration of your prior well-reasoned decision. The community cannot accept status quo any longer. Thank you.
 

On Tuesday, the City Council voted 5-2 to certify the airport Environmental Impact Report (EIR) supporting a site plan of 98,000 square feet. The Chamber supported the council's action.

The Chamber believes that the City of Long Beach has exhausted all its efforts to fully comply with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Council's 98,000 square foot option containing 12 parking pads provides the most environmentally mitigated design. Any less then that decreases the environmental mitigation measures provided by the project.

Furthermore, The Chamber believes:

1. There have been hundreds of hours of community input provided on the proposed terminal improvements.

2. After one year of hearings and study sessions, attended by both the residential and business community alike, your Airport Advisory Commission (AAC) voted in support of the recommendations.

3. Today, certifying the EIR does not commit the City to a final design size for the terminal.

4. The City retains its right to build any size at or below that permitted in the EIR or do nothing at all.

5. Doing nothing by staying with the current temporary facilities does not mitigate the issues raised by the appellants.

6. Instead it exacerbates the problems due to increased pollutants from delayed or backed up idling planes, ground congestion resulting from excessive vehicle trips and off-site parking.

7. So, do nothing? Not a good option for our community.

December 8, 2005

Long Beach Chamber Issues Statement on Release of Long Beach Airport Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

The Long Beach Chamber has previously gone on record supporting the construction of permanent terminal facilities at the Long Beach Airport, as long as such changes support  the current permitted commercial flights set by ordinance (41 commercial air carrier and 25-commuter air carrier flights).

The current permanent facilities at the Long Beach Airport were designed to accommodate only fifteen airline flights and the last permanent addition was done more than twenty years ago.

Temporary Facilities Hurt Our City

Temporary facilities which are currently in place show visitors a bad impression of our great city.   They also increase pollution because of the use of temporary diesel generators and insufficient parking.  Other temporary facilities include tents, trailers, and mobile office structures are inconvenient and do not adequately provide the level of facilities needed for the traveling public and the citizens of Long Beach.  Because of the temporary facilities in place and the lack of adequate services provided for travelers, the Long Beach Airport does not reflect and promote the image of California’s fifth largest city.

EIR Utilizes Citizen Input

Over 16 months of community input established the foundation for the recent draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that concludes:

- "Neither the Proposed Project [102,850 square feet, 14 jet parking spots] nor any of the project alternatives would add passengers or flights to the airport." (Section 5-3)

- "The Proposed Project is able to meet all of the project objectives..." (Section 1.13)

- “The Proposed Project is the environmentally superior alternative."  (Section 1.13)

The Long Beach Chamber reaffirms its position on the terminal improvements following the recent release of the EIR: the 102,850 total square footage proposal is both adequate to meet the passenger service demands, and yet is the environmentally superior alternative and evidence to be well below the size other comparable airports.

November 11, 2005

Governor Urges President to Support Future of Boeing C-17 Program

Last week, Governor Schwarzenegger urged President Bush to support the future of the Boeing C-17 program in Long Beach. The Governor stated, "California has suffered disproportionately during the defense draw down of the last decade. I am disappointed that despite strong Congressional support the Department of Defense reportedly has not committed future funding to continue the successful C-17 multi-year procurement program beyond the current contract." The US Senate voted to keep the C-17 program alive authorizing the United States Air Force to buy 42 of the C-17 airplanes.

The full text of the Governor's letter is below followed by a report from the Press Telegram on the recent US Senate action.

November 3, 2005

August 1, 2005

Long Beach Alliance Responds to July 24th editorial addressing Alliance / LBHUSH2 Similarities

Click here to view the July 24, 2005 editorial in the Press Telegram

The Terry Jensen and Bill Barnes “common goals” editorial of July 24th, addressing the similarities between the Long Beach Alliance and LBHUSH2, raised relevant points regarding the discussions to improve the City of Long Beach’s own commercial passenger terminal. It did not, however, address the public policy focus that is required in order to provide the “win-win” result the authors are hoping will come about from the two groups reaching an agreement. I am certain that both groups would have long ago preferred to see City Hall explain clearly the facilities required to support 41 flights plus 25 commuter flights and no more.

The Long Beach Alliance, an organization made up of several hundred businesses and residences both, came together following a February 2005 council meeting. In this meeting the council rejected the recommendations of their citizen-based Airport Advisory Commission, that for over a year (at the council’s request) reviewed various commercial terminal-sizing options. The Long Beach Alliance supports reasonable improvements to the City’s own commercial passenger terminal facilities at the Long Beach Airport. The Alliance was born out of the necessity to communicate the facts regarding the improvements we believe the majority of Long Beach businesses and residents hoped would come from City Hall. In order to clarify what Mr. Jensen and Barnes suggest we should agree on, we proudly clarify our support for the following:

- Replace the temporary trailers, tented and chain-linked fenced facilities with modern, permanent facilities while preserving the existing façade and unique charm of the “small city” and “easy in-easy out” feel.
 

- Provide safe, secure, efficient, attractive and comfortable facilities commensurate with the commercial flights permitted, accommodating the maximum peak passenger demand, not only current passenger demand.
 

- Ensure that no improvements to the passenger facilities be at the expense of the tax payers in the City of Long Beach, nor come from General Fund monies.
 

- Support long-term leases with the airlines, commensurate with upfront investments in facility improvements, with rental credit offsetting that commitment.
 

- Support any and all efforts to protect the existing noise ordinance that is the actual mechanism that will control and restrict the amount of commercial passenger flights that operate in/out of Long Beach Airport..

Despite rhetoric suggesting the contrary, the Alliance only stands for improving the commercial terminal facilities – not airport expansion. We do not support more flights and believe:

- That any additional measures to further protect the noise ordinance should be legal, reasonable and not weaken the City’s ability to defend against any challenges for additional flights and our noise ordinance.

- That the community understand that the public policy challenge is NOT the risk “if we build it they will come,” but instead is how our council and staff work with the existing carriers NOW, developing a business relationship wherein the City and carriers work together to protect the ordinance. What is preventing the staff and Council from sitting down with all the carriers now and evaluating the options related to facility design, financing, etc? This process should begin without further delay.

- The truth is there is not a direct relationship between the final size of the commercial passenger terminal and the City’s objective in defending against any future challenge to the noise ordinance and flight limits. The political delays and lack of any specific terminal design/planning, combined with the rhetoric from both sides of this issue, is providing the ammunition to those in surrounding cities who are looking to regionalize airport capacity and see airports like Long Beach as those that can take additional flights. Our objective is very clear. Build a new terminal and defend the regulations on the amount of commercial flights permitted to operate out of the airport.

Given the other more significant challenges facing the City of Long Beach , finalizing the terminal improvement project should be very simple. The question FOR RESIDENTS in Long Beach, as it relates to the airport and the “common goals” between the Alliance and LBHUSH2 is: When will our city leaders recognize the importance of our airport to the economic vitality of our city and vocally promote a balanced airport public policy agenda without fear or apology? In order to develop the trust that both sides so badly want, I believe the businesses and residents of the City of Long Beach expect all of their elected officials to become actively engaged in overseeing this deliberation in order to preserve the unique protections we enjoy today and properly manage a gateway into our city with pride.

Curt Castagna
Board Member Long Beach Alliance

Click here to view the July 24, 2005 editorial in the Press Telegram
 

June 16, 2005

Author of Proposal to Reconfigure Airport Advisory Council Removes Item from Agenda
 

At the June 14, 2005 city council meeting, Councilmember Rae Gabelich decided to pull the Long Beach Chamber OPPOSED proposal from the agenda.

June 16, 2005

Gabelich withdraws proposal
 

From the Press Telegram

LONG BEACH -- Saying there were "disturbing' misperceptions about her intentions, City Councilwoman Rae Gabelich withdrew a proposal at Tuesday's council meeting to change membership qualifications for the city's Airport Advisory Commission.
Instead, Gabelich said she is asking the commission to conduct study sessions so that the group can forge ways to improve continuity on the board, clarify its direction and, most importantly, help reduce community tensions that Gabelich said have grown in recent months over airport improvements.

Gabelich was slated to ask the council during Tuesday night's regular meeting to authorize the City Attorney study and draw up an ordinance that would have altered commission membership from at- large nominations by the mayor to one commissioner appointed from each council district.

But a commission member and former chair said the move was vindictive and would set a dangerous precedent. Commissioner Ron Salk said Gabelich was trying to shake up the board simply because it had not voted the way she wanted on controversial Long Beach Airport improvements.

In other actions:

*The council unanimously voted to adopt a new Long Beach Strategic Plan for older adults as part of its overall 10-year plan.

The plan, which is 43 pages plus 36 pages of appendices, consists of five primary goals to improve safety, transportation, affordable housing, physical and mental health and quality of life. It also recognizes the need to unify services, improve data collection and information about the elderly and reach out to the culturally and linguistically isolated.

*Council members authorized City Manager Gerry Miller to study funding sources for the hiring of as many as 300 additional police officers.

The vote gives Miller 45 days to prepare a report detailing the estimated number of additional police officers the city should add to its roughly 935-member force and how it will pay for the training and hiring of those officers.

The Police Department's budget currently supports 975 sworn officers, and Chief Anthony Batts has said he needs 200 to 300 more officers to compensate for the city's expanding population.

Miller's study is expected to identify funding sources, which could include tax hikes, fees or shifting resources to public safety.

Long Beach, with a population of about 470,000, has a roughly 500-to-1 ratio of officers to residents. Los Angeles, with a population of 3.9 million, has a 420-to-1 officer-resident ratio, which Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton hopes to reduce by hiring more than 1,000 new officers.
 

June 13, 2005

City Council to Consider Proposal to Reconfigure Airport Advisory Council

June 14, 2005 Long Beach City Council Agenda item:

The Airport Advisory Commission is responsible for consulting with and advising the city council in formulating city policies regarding the development and operation of the Long Beach municipal airport.
 

There are currently nine members of the Airport Advisory Commission, with the only residency requirement that they live within the city at all times during their service on the advisory body.
 

In the interest of ensuring a citywide representation on the Commission, Councilmember Rae Gabelich is proposing that there be a commissioner appointed from each council district.

June 13, 2005

The Long Beach Chamber's Airport Area Business Council Responds

Dear Council member Gabelich,

I am writing to provide comments related to your June 14, 2005 Memorandum and proposed council agenda item. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments. I understand item R-28- Airport Advisory Commission (AAC) is intended to change, via an ordinance, the manner in which the Mayor appoints Commissioners to this commission, requiring that there be one member from each council district. I believe this suggestion was previously addressed by the Council in July of 2002. I question why this matter is now again being raised ? Will this ordinance and the membership requirement be established to apply to ALL city commissions? What additional benefit can the City receive from yet another ordinance that is not possibly under the current commission appointment process?

Over the last 18-24 months the AAC has certainly been in the public limelight, and in addition to the other airport matters discussed in their meetings, held several open hearings on the passenger terminal improvement project. Without debating the outcome of these hearings, and the merits of having the AAC study these matters to begin with, everyone should agree that the debate and dialogue that took place in these hearings was well thought out, reasonably balanced and certainly diverse.

Is there now a perception that since the commission's recommendations were not consistent, or unanimous with the subsequent city council vote in regards to the terminal improvement scoping is there now a need to change it's makeup? I would think, should there be a concern on the AAC's makeup that this could be addressed directly to the Mayor who submits names for appointment and resolved without the need for an ordinance. To single out one commission from the others is certainly not be reasonable or fair.

The city's advisory commissions play an important role for the community, for the residences and businesses alike. While some may debate their value to the community, ALL aviation related business, at airports such as Long Beach Airport do not have the choice to simply "find another location" to operate. Long Beach leaseholders, businesses, and users need cooperation and support from their landlord - The City of Long Beach. As such, these businesses and airport users need a mechanism that ensures that the City is aware of airport requirements. And yes likewise, airport operators must understand community needs.

The Airport Advisory Commission is a valuable means to ensure such communication. But for sincere dialog to occur, the commission must have a balance of airport management, leaseholders, operators, users, city representatives and property owners and tenants affected by the airport. Since the Long Beach Airport itself proudly hosts a balance and variety of airport industries/users, it is reasonable to expect that the make up of the AAC have airport industry representatives working together with the community representatives. In order for this balance to be assured the Mayor and Council alike need the flexibility to appoint members from all areas of the city, and not be restricted by additional ordinances, controls or be counter productive to the input that each council person currently maintains prior to any appointment being considered.

As a 9 year member of the AAC, and yes I admit, as an active member of the airport and business community, I took pride in being able to provide valuable input to several airport related policy issues, many that are now the foundations of the very regulations that the business and residential community alike now wishes to secure and maintain. I support each and every member of the current AAC, all of whom have spent hundreds of volunteer hours providing the staff and council a representative balance of input, permitting you to make informed policy decisions. Besides the precedence created for other advisory commissions, the proposed ordinance will not secure the city any additional "ethical controls" that you may now be seeking from future members. Instead it will remove the flexibility that we should provide our mayor and council, assuring that the input received from the AAC will not be absent specific business leadership and the balance of input that all of us should expect from any advisory commission.

I want to thank you and the council for considering the merits of these points prior to the deliberation of the proposed agenda item R-28

Sincerely

Curt Castagna
President/CEO -Aeroplex Aviation
Chair, Long Beach Chamber Airport Area Business Council

May 2005

Long Beach Chamber Involved with New Community Alliance to Educate Long Beach on the Impact of the Long Beach Airport

www.longbeachalliance.com

April 9, 2005

Long Beach Airport Economic Impact

Airport has $4B economic print

From the Press Telegram

The Long Beach Airport and surrounding businesses contribute nearly $4 billion to the local and regional economies, according to an early version of a study released Thursday.

The study shows an annual payroll of $1 billion, with direct earnings of more than $1 billion and a regional earnings impact of more than $2 billion.

"The Long Beach Airport is an important source of economic vitality for the city," the study stated. "Business opportunities need to be expanded within the constraint of the existing noise ordinances."

The preliminary findings by the Long Beach Economic Development Commission show the airport area complex "is clearly an important component of the overall vitality of the city's economy."

Joe Magaddino, Cal State Long Beach's economics program chairman, led the study, which began in July 2004 and used 2003 data, and submitted a version to the commission.

The complete study is expected to be released to the public at the end of the month and includes specific economic impact information for airport activities.

The data focus on the "Long Beach Area Complex," which includes the airport and an area bounded by the San Diego (405) Freeway, Carson Street, Clark Avenue and Cherry Avenue.

Within the area are 148 businesses, 16,000 direct employees and a payroll of more than $1 billion.

Most of the jobs about 10,900 in the immediate airport area are connected to the Boeing Co. and other manufacturing companies. The transportation industry boasts about 2,060 jobs.

When indirect or multiplying impacts are factored, the airport complex supports more than 48,000 regional jobs with total earnings more than $2 billion.

In late April, statistical information related to two additional, smaller areas Long Beach Airport Dependent Activities, and Long Beach Air Transportation and Related Activities will be included.

The findings indicated that 60 percent of airline tickets sold for Long Beach Airport were bought in Los Angeles County. Orange County accounted for 35 percent. About 5 percent were sold in other counties.

More than 24,000 overnight visitors used the airport in 2003 and spent about $8.8 million on hotels, and $8.1 million at restaurants, retail stores and on entertainment.

Flight crews who work for the airlines serving Long Beach spent $2.3 million for lodging, and $1.4 million for food in 2003.

The airport's enterprise fund, which raises money from parking and airline landing fees, car rentals and from fixed-based operations money used to pay for airport operations, capital and other costs raised $23.9 million in 2003.

The city received $2 million in property taxes in 2003 from the area, with $1.3 million generated from retail sales revenues.

Neighborhood groups representing residents under the flight path have argued that the financial benefits of the facility and surrounding area have not been measured and were possibly overestimated.

City Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, who has been a vocal critic of the airport's expansion plans, said she has not had a chance to review the report's numbers. But she remains skeptical.

Gabelich said that while a copy of the report's early version was delivered to her council office late Wednesday, she first saw it Thursday as she participated in an airport forum at the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce's annual business forecast conference.

"I am really offended that the chamber got a document that was paid for by the city before we got it," she said.

February 25, 2005

JetBlue chief blasts away over LB Airport

From the Press Telegram

Reacting publicly for the first time to the City Council's decision to limit the scope of improvements at Long Beach Airport, JetBlue Airways CEO David Neeleman said the city is being run by a small group of obstructionists that the business community didn't organize well enough to fight.

But the business sector could be coming up with a counterpunch of its own: the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce's board of directors is seriously considering the possibility of pushing for a citywide vote on airport improvements if it believes the council is trying to whittle down the terminal project even smaller than it already has.

At issue is a council vote earlier this month that rejected one plan for airport terminal improvements drawn up by a consultant in lieu of a smaller one. The vote, which makes the alternative project the largest that can be studied by an environmental impact report, effectively killed the airport's desired plan.

JetBlue is bitterly disappointed at the council vote, Neeleman said.

"There is a majority of people, a vast majority of people, who want to be proud of their airport. I'm not sure their views are being reflected," Neeleman said.

Neeleman said his stand and that of his airline which along with Southwest Airlines is credited by analysts as being one of the most successful in the industry has always been that the airport, built in 1941, needs to be improved, not expanded. Neeleman says existing facilities derisively described by JetBlue as trailers are too small.

Yes, it's a charged issue, Neeleman said, and he understands the environmental concerns, but, "us being in a trailer situation at the airport is a bit of an embarassment to the city.

"It wasn't even a question of us wanting to add more service. We all know that's not possible."

Questioned about a citywide initiative on the issue, Neeleman said it isn't JetBlue's place to "lead the charge.

"We wouldn't initiate it. But if there are other organizations in the city that are growing impatient with what the City Council is doing, if they want to do it, we would welcome it. There are a lot of people upset about this thing," Neeleman said.

JetBlue is also not going to threaten to move out of Long Beach, Neeleman said.

"We are not in a threatening mode here. We're just disappointed. I'm a very strong believer in what's right will work its way out. And this is right for the city," Neeleman said.

"Regardless of whether we are in trailers or not, people will still want to fly there. I just thought there would be some forward-looking vision."

Randy Gordon, president and CEO of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, said the group's board will be monitoring the council and the progress of the project through the EIR and will in no way support anything smaller than the package adopted by the council.

"If there is any movement after the EIR comes back, or during the course of it, where we think this council is moving towards anything else less … we would be thinking seriously about leading a citywide referendum," Gordon said. "People have asked us to."

The city and consultant HNTB recommended increasing the terminal from its current 58,320 square feet to 133,324 square feet. The council instead made an alternative plan the focus of an EIR, one that would increase the terminal to 102,980 square feet.

Gordon admits he would have liked to see the business community rally more behind the city's proposed improvements package but acknowledged it never really rallies for an issue as much as small groups do.

"We did the best we could in a short a period of time," Gordon said.

It will be the first time nonstop flights will be available out of Burbank to the East Coast.

"We kind of started looking through our database of all of our customers and saw where they were coming from, and saw that there were a lot of folks that were kind of making their way from this part of L.A. down to Long Beach," Neeleman said at a news conference at Bob Hope Airport.

The airline uses Long Beach as its West Coast hub of operations, but because the number of daily commercial flights is capped by a strict noise ordinance, JetBlue's growth is limited there, Neeleman said.

February 8, 2005

JetBlue CEO Writes Letter to Long Beach City Council on Airport EIR

February 7, 2005

Members of the City Council

City of Long Beach

333 West Ocean Blvd., 14^th floor

Long Beach, CA 90802

Dear City Council Member:

On behalf of JetBlue’s Long Beach based crewmembers and indeed all of our 8,000 crewmembers, I urge you to support the report of the Airport Advisory Commission that you tasked with studying the airport’s permanent terminal facilities.

Over the past two years, millions of JetBlue customers, and those of other airlines, have been greeted by an assembly of undersized trailers that hardly meet the minimal customer service expectations we have set for our customers.  JetBlue has relied on the City to properly address this shortcoming and in doing so JetBlue has participated in the process established by the Council.  As this lengthy process concludes with a scheduled vote to proceed with environmental reviews, I urge you to permit all Commission scenarios and recommendations to be studied, particularly the one supported by expert airport design consultants hired by the City, the City’s own airport staff as well as JetBlue.

For more than three years, ending a long period of underutilization of the airport, JetBlue has provided the residents of Long Beach with convenient and affordable air service to key destinations utilizing the quietest aircraft in their class.  JetBlue has defended the City’s noise ordinance from serious legal challenges and we have invested tens of millions of dollars to ensure our operations comply with existing noise curfews.  Nevertheless, the City has failed to construct or even move forward on an adequately sized permanent terminal facility.

As members of the Council, each of you know perfectly well that there is simply no relationship between providing adequate permanent terminal facilities and adding more flights to the airport.  I urge your vote to expeditiously proceed with the environmental work as recommended by your duly tasked Airport Advisory Commission.

Sincerely,

David Neeleman

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

January 26, 2005

Long Beach Chamber Writes Letter to City Council on Airport EIR

Honorable Mayor O’Neill

Members of the Long Beach City Council

RE: Long Beach Airport Environmental Impact Report

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce (The Chamber) and its 1,800 members, we are writing today to respectfully urge you to move forward with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Long Beach Airport. 

Since the original proposal was to be brought before the City Council in December 2003,  there have been hundreds of hours of community input provided on the proposed terminal improvements.  After one year of hearings and study sessions, attended by both the residential and business community alike,  the Airport Advisory Commission (AAC) voted in support of the staff preferred recommendations. This preference, along with the complete list of scoping alternatives and suggestions,  were submitted to your Council. 

The Chamber has previously gone on record and has detailed our position on the terminal improvement project. We now request that you immediately initiate the EIR process and consider ALL the options presented to by the AAC  for a complete study and evaluation. We would hope that you would support the AAC’s commitment and consider the merits of evaluating the full range of sizing alternatives, from zero to the maximum, and that the EIR should consider this range prior to any design/project approval.

We recognize the need to mitigate against any threat to our coveted noise ordinance, designed to protect and guide our airport’s growth. We believe that the business and residential communities would best be served in having the EIR consider ALL the options without the need for your Council to now vote on a preferred scooping option.   

The current permanent facilities at the Long Beach Airport were designed to accommodate only fifteen (15) airline flights and the increased passenger demands and congestion in these facilities cannot be ignored.  It is the long-standing position of the Chamber that the temporary facilities, which include tents, trailers, and mobile office structures currently in place,  are inconvenient and do not adequately provide the level of facilities needed for the traveling public, the citizens of Long Beach, as  well as  promote the image of California’s fifth largest city.  The current facilities are clearly unsustainable for long-term use. 

We support any objective that will maximize the airport’s economic development opportunities in balance with the need to protect the noise ordinance and our residents’ quality of life.  Moving forward with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on February 8, 2005, and studying all of the options presented to you will assure this balance without any delay in considering the improvements that all of Long Beach can enjoy.

Sincerely,

Lou Anne Bynum

Chairman of the Board

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Randy Gordon

President and CEO

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Curt Castagna

Chairman

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Airport Area Business Council

CC:

Members, Long Beach Chamber Board of Directors
Members, Long Beach Chamber Government Affairs Council

Jerry Miller, Long Beach City Manager

Chris Kunze, Manager, Long Beach Airport

Larry Herrera, Long Beach City Clerk

February 8, 2005
Chamber Supports Airport EIR

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. The Chamber wants to go on record again tonight as supporting the full scoping of Airport EIR form zero to maximum, which would include Alternative #2.
 
You all seemed to express support last week for Alt #2. If this is really what you would like to see, then why not support the full scoping that will look at no modernization through the staff recommended plan? Alt #2 is part of that. As you all indicated, you wanted to be fully informed in making your decision. A full scoping will do just that.   
 
At that point, you will have received all the information you need to make an informed decision. And if you decide that Alt #2 is the right plan, then the Chamber could support this as long as there are 15 parking pads for aircraft.
 
Our concern has to do with the possibility that by capping the EIR at Alt #2 -- approximately 103K feet -- the real intent would be to focus on smaller alternatives. You could end up pushing for a smaller scope in the desire to minimize any modernization.
 
Any effort to do this would completely undermine the work of the AAC and as well as discount the desire of businesses and other residents in the City that support a quality plan.   
 
Let me just also say that businesses like Jet Blue committed to a successful operation in Long Beach -- a major investment for them – and have worked honestly with the City in being a good corporate partner. It would be a huge loss to this community if they decided the effort was not worth it.  
 
We need to remind ourselves that a citizens’ initiated City wide vote on this issue would mean that no EIR is required. I don’t think any of us want that. I think we all support the notion that a well done and fully scoped EIR would give us the information that all interested parties seek. More importantly, you would have the best possible data for your consideration.
 
For this reason, the Chamber encourages you to stay with the full scoping and that if Alt #2 is eventually supported, we could go along with it, but would support nothing less than 15 parking spaces.  

February 1, 2005
Long Beach Chamber Addresses Council Meeting on EIR Agenda Item

Long Beach Airport Environmental Impact Report Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council I am here tonight representing the LB Chamber and a resident of this great city to ask that you do not take action on adopting facilities modernization alternatives for the purposes of scoping the LB Airport EIR.
 
We request that the full scoping of the staff recommended plan --  as well as all alternatives --  moves forward.
 
We commend the Council and City staff for its thoroughness and adherence to transparency in the difficult process of gathering public input and allowing people to voice their concerns one way or another. In doing so, the community has weighed in on almost two years worth of work and hundreds of hours of community input on the proposed terminal improvements, including the work of the Airport Advisory Commission.
 
The AAC has presented its recommendations to you and this is the first chance you have had as a full council to react to that recommendation. But instead of reacting to it, you are being asked tonight to bypass the recommendation and limit the scoping by turning immediately to alternative plan #2. and not allow the process to continue.
 
We urge you to immediately initiate the EIR process and consider ALL the options presented to you by the AAC for a complete study and evaluation. We would hope that you would support the AAC’s commitment and consider the merits of evaluating the full range of sizing alternatives, from zero to the maximum, and that the EIR study is included prior to any design/project approval.
 
Your own process has encouraged the vast work done by the public on this over the last 18 months. Why would you stop that process now?
 
In agenda item # 22 tonight you are also asking for a report from the City attorney outlining all legal options available to protect and defend the noise ordinance related to the current facilities and proposed modernization – I presume whichever plan it is.
 
We all support the noise ordinance. And we are all concerned about legal challenges to the ordinance. How we interpret protecting the ordinance is where we probably differ.
 
If you allow the full scoping to take place, and go ahead with a report from the City Attorney giving a legal opinion that includes all modernization plans, then you will have all the data and information you need to make a good decision relative to revitalizing the airport facilities. 
At that time, you will have taken the process to its fully vetted conclusion and you will have ensured for complete transparency with respect to the public in doing so.
 
This is the best protection for the ordinance that you can provide and it prevents the possibility of the voters using other means to find a solution.
 
Thank you.

September 16, 2004
Chamber Addresses Long Beach Airport Advisory Commission on EIR
 

After a year of debate and public hearings, the Airport Advisory Commission (6-3 vote) has recommended a plan to enhance the temporary facilities at the Long Beach Airport. Community and Business Leaders Support the Long Beach Airport - Airport Advisory Council Approve Enhancements to Airport

The City of Long Beach Airport Advisory Commission met on September 16, 2004 to discuss the commercial airport terminal improvement recommendations. The terminal improvement project at the Long Beach Airport was approved by the commissioner.

The Chamber believes that our airport deserves to be sustained and we must communicate the positive economic impacts of the airport on our community.

Chairman Bynum's Statement to the Airport Advisory Commission

Good evening. My name is Lou Anne Bynum and I am a resident of Long Beach and Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce.

I am here tonight on behalf of the Chamber and its more than 1,900
business members to encourage you to continue to support the scope of renovation outlined in the Staff Recommended Facilities Plan.

The current permanent facilities at the Long Beach Airport were designed to accommodate only fifteen (15) airline flights and the last permanent addition was done over twenty (20) years ago. Temporary facilities -- tents, trailers, and mobile office structures currently in place -- are inconvenient and don’t come close to providing an adequate level of service and facilities needed for the traveling public and the residents of Long Beach. Nor do they promote the image of California’s fifth largest city.

We are in complete agreement that the City of Long Beach should only permit flights within the confines of the current City of Long Beach FAA approved Noise Ordinance………and we support terminal facility improvements with a
design that stays within 41 commercial and 25 commuter daily flights.

With that in mind, the current facilities cannot reasonably accommodate the existing demands in the terminal at current peak periods. The Airport is a key gateway to the City and region and a first impression to passengers. It is also a critical economic development anchor for our entire City, the downtown area, the Convention Center and the Port.

In 1998, hundreds of people worked over the course of many months to develop the 2010 Strategic Plan for the entire City. Under Goal I: Economic Opportunity for All, a statement was made re the Airport’s role in business development based on our City’s strengths. I quote: “Develop a strategy for land use at the Airport that maximizes the economic return to the community.”

This renovation project does exactly that – it improves the service and conditions at the Airport to maximize usage and economic return while ensuring that the current noise ordinance is not violated. Linking this project to the 2010 Plan in this manner is a clear example of responsible economic development that takes into consideration the concerns of all the residents in Long Beach.

Regarding improvements and scope. We are not talking about “over the top, extravagant accommodations” We are talking about clean, decent, convenient accommodations for the passengers that use the airport……… again…….staying within the confines of the current noise and flight ordinance. The proposed reductions substantially undermine the improved quality of basic services that are essential to any airport. The only places to cut – hold rooms and concession areas-- are those that would offer the most benefit to passengers. In addition, the reductions to the concession area—eliminating specialty retail and reducing concession seating area – reduces the projected revenue to the City. We all know the pain involved in budget cuts. This flies in the face of good judgment – both in terms of decent customer service and with regard to appropriate avenues to increase the general fund revenue.

Let me also say something about the concerns expressed by residents re air quality. It is ridiculous to think that the Chamber is against clean air or efforts to improve our air quality. All of us want a good quality of life. We recognize, however, that quality of life issues like this are significant public policy issues that go way beyond the Port or the Airport for that matter. Our very large region is thoroughly congested with traffic of all kinds and the air is unhealthy throughout the southland. To try to solve this regional problem by attempting to limit reasonable improvements at the Airport -- within a hard fought and currently protected noise and flight ordinance -- is very short sighted.

And we think it is misplaced. None of us want the federal government to step in and dictate what usage our airport should support. By not reasonably managing our own development needs at the Airport, which protects our hard fought flight and noise ordinance, we open the door to possible intrusion by the government. There are a lot of concerns that people have raised that are way beyond the scope of this project.

The Chamber asks that you support the proposed scope of renovation. It is an economic development issue for our City and it is the right decision for you.

October 2003

Long Beach Chamber Board of Directors Takes Position on Long Beach Airport Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

The current permanent facilities at the Long Beach Airport were designed to accommodate only fifteen (15) airline flights and the last permanent addition was done over twenty (20) years ago. Temporary facilities, which include tents, trailers, and mobile office structures currently in place are inconvenient and do not adequately provide the level of facilities needed for the traveling public, the citizens of Long Beach, and promote the image of California’s fifth largest city.

Position on the Scope of the EIR to Construct Permanent Terminal Facilities at the Long Beach Airport

-The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce supports the construction of permanent terminal facilities at the Long Beach Airport, commensurate with the current minimum permitted flight passenger levels, as set by ordinance for 41 commercial air carrier and 25-commuter air carrier flights.

-The Chamber believes that the scoping of the EIR process for this project be narrow in character, limited only to the environmental effects of the construction of the physical buildings, parking structures, and other permanent facilities. The EIR should not include issues related to the noise, pollution and other environmental concerns not directly related to the project. These areas were covered extensively in a previous EIR and confirmed by the Federal Court in 1995 when the Airport Noise Ordinance, approved by City Council, confirmed the limitations of flights out of Long Beach Airport.

-That the EIR focus solely on the project impact for the proposed permanent terminal facilities proposed.

-That any additional risk assessments, if desired by the City, be done on a separate track and not be limited to the airport alone.

-Agree that the City of Long Beach should only permit flights within the confines of the current City of Long Beach FAA approved Noise Ordinance.

-Provide Chamber support for the terminal facility improvements with a design within the agreed upon 41 commercial and 25 commuter daily flights

-Recognize that the current facilities are not adequate to fulfill the city's Strategic Plan (City 2010 Strategic Plan) and that they cannot reasonably accommodate the existing demands in the terminal at current peak periods.

-That the airline parking ramp must be able to at least  go back to that capacity provide in the late 1980's and early 1990's during that period when we had 41 daily flights.

-That vehicle parking facilities should be brought into the airport area boundaries so as: Reduce the impacts to the adjoining neighborhood areas; Accommodate the other airport tenants near the commercial terminal such as Gulfstream, Flight Safety, etc; For the Airport Bureau to control its own parking destiny and not rely on others such as Boeing, City College, etc; and that the parking facilities also be designed to meet the minimum permitted needs

-That all the terminal improvements and facilities be designed for the maximum level of safety and security and consider that many of the new federal requirements in this area did not exist two years ago.

-Any additional studies not a part of the project-focused EIR should not be permitted to hold up approval/construction of the terminal improvements.
 

June 21, 2003
The Anti-LAX

Recent opinion pieces suggest our airport is positioning itself to become an annex to LAX or that alternative enforcement of noise violators is not being managed appropriately. Actually, the opposite is true.

While maybe not unanimous, the residential and business communities both agree that a successful Long Beach Airport would reap economic benefits while protecting the quality of life.

Having struggled for years to establish a vision for itself, the Long Beach Airport now serves the community with a variety of commercial, business and general aviation uses. As a result of these regulated activities, by ordinances and policies considered by industry standards to be excessive and restrictive, Long Beach for years was perceived as business unfriendly, and not solely by airport and aviation interests.

Neither the city nor JetBlue required a survey to demonstrate the airport's successful rejuvenation, but like it or not, the survey did confirm how the community felt about their operation. It allowed JetBlue to evaluate their business operation and not rely on the attendance of those speaking for or against the airport at counsel or in the newspaper.

Would a similar survey prove that Long Beach needs to be less dependent on funding resources other then Sacramento, or that we should be more creative when it comes to overcoming legislative barriers that restrict high-paying jobs or cause them to leave the area? Certainly, but like JetBlue's success, we see those impacts already and thus should not criticize one successful corporate citizen for conducting this evaluation or for requesting the results to be communicated directly to council. Would the residents not do the same?

Instead of publicly debating the definition of community
outreach or who should have decided the recipients of JetBlue's restitution, it seems more appropriate that residents, businesses and City Council members should instead focus all efforts in advocating the protection of 13 years and millions of dollars spent by the City of Long Beach to establish what is considered sacred airport noise policy.

While it may not satisfy 100 percent of the needs or desires of the businesses and residents alike, it surely was created with the intention of not allowing unbridled airport expansion. It provides for both a multitude of balanced airport uses (not found at any other airport in the region) while restricting noise impacts through controls not found or approved at other larger or regional airports.

These facts should be remembered:

JetBlue did enter a plea of "nolo contendere' to the first five counts of their noise violations. This is same as a guilty plea and the city counse