"Smaller Long Beach Airport plan OK'd"

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Smaller LGB airport plan OK'd
Contentious issue of terminal expansion now goes to EIR
By Felix Sanchez 
The Long Beach (CA) Press-Telegram


LONG BEACH - A split City Council voted Tuesday night to focus an
Environmental Impact Report for proposed Long Beach Airport modernization on
a project smaller than one endorsed by the city staff and a hired
architectural consultant. 

But in a twist, the compromise alternative was not supported by three City
Council members who had pushed for the smaller option. 

The plan OK'd in a 5 to 4 vote contained a provision that allows the EIR to
study the possibility of including from 12 to 14 airplane parking positions
at the airport terminal, two more than the council trio wanted in the
package they were endorsing. 

"What drives capacity (at an airport) are the number of gates and
positions," District 8 Councilwoman Rae Gabelich said. 

The additional plane parking positions, where the aircraft can be
electrically powered while it it serviced or takes on or unloads passengers,
could be used in the future to argue for more daily flights at Long Beach
Airport, Gabelich said. 

Gabelich and councilmembers Patrick O'Donnell and Tonia Reyes Uranga, who
had rallied support for a smaller airports improvement package over the last
two weeks, and wanted the EIR to focus on their recommendation, which
included only up to 12 plane parking positions, voted against the motion. 

They were joined by Councilmember Dan Baker. 

Councilwoman Laura Richardson, with support from Councilman Frank Colonna,
introduced the alternative to the Gabelich/O'Donnell/Uranga package. 

Richardson said she felt forced to pick an alternative plan without having
the EIR available to show her the full impacts of all the plans. 

Colonna said he didn't want the city to be found as making inadequate plans
by studying only a smaller number of parking positions. 

The spots are key, Colonna said, because an airport needs enough of them to
prevent commercial jets from having to idle on taxiways or the tarmac,
spewing pollution into the air, while they wait for other planes to load up
or leave off passengers. 

Colonna stressed that studying up to 14 parking spots doesn't mean the
council has to include them in any final improvements package once the EIR
study is done in about one year. 

It was the argument made unsuccesfully by a number of residents, executives
with JetBlue Airways and at least one councilmember when questioning why the
city-staff endorsed improvements package was not going to be studied by the
EIR. 

That package called for increasing the airport terminal from 58,320 square
feet to 133,243 square feet, mostly in new passenger holdrooms, concession
areas, and office space, as well as ticketing facilities and passenger
screening areas. This plan will not be part of the EIR study. 

The Gabelich/O'Donnell/Uranga alternative, which they said was better for
residential neighborhoods near the airport and wouldn't open the airport up
to being forced to take more daily flights, calls for improvements that
would expand the terminal to 102,980 square feet. 

The plan was one of three "reduced' size alternatives drawn up by the
Airport Advisory Commission that would have been studied by the EIR along
with its larger companion plan. 

Now, the EIR will study the smaller plan, and two scaled-down versions and a
"no build' alternative. 

"We should look at all five alternatives that went through the process' with
the advisory commission, Councilmember Val Lerch said before the vote. "We
circumvent the process by not looking at all the alternatives." 

Lou Anne Bynum, chairman of the board of the Long Beach Area Chamber of
Commerce, said the EIR should focus on the full scope of all the
alternatives. Then the council can make its final decision with "the best
possible data." 

Many of the more than 300 people who packed the City Council chambers for
the second consecutive week on the airport issue didn't buy that argument. 

"You should consider not only a no-build alternative," said resident Harry
Pope. "But a tear it down alternative." 

Pope's comment was met with rousing applause. 

The EIR study will likely take about nine months, with another three months
for public comment and then review by the city's Planning Commission and the
City Council. The council will then decide what, if any, airport
improvements should be made. 

The city staff says the airport terminal, built in 1941, is inadequate to
handle the more than 3 million passengers that now use the facility. With an
additional 25 commuter flights sitting vacant, and that could be filled to
accompany the 41 daily commercial flights now in service, those numbers
could grow larger.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************