"Group fights Long Beach Airport growth"

Monday, February 13, 2006

Group fights airport growth
Q&A: Kowal speaks for L.B. residents
By Felix Sanchez
The Long Beach (CA) Press-Telegram


Public comment recently ended on a draft Environmental Impact Report
covering proposed terminal improvements at Long Beach Airport, but not
before one of the project's biggest critics took its chance to file
questions on the report.

The nonprofit neighborhood group, LBHUSH2, which has stated goals to protect
and improve the quality of life of Long Beach residents with advocacy, has
focused recently on city plans to increase the size of the airport terminal
to accommodate passenger growth.

The group's efforts have drawn criticism, especially by a counter group, the
Long Beach Alliance, which argues LBHUSH2 has been unrealistic in its
efforts to control airport growth.

In its draft EIR response, LBHUSH2 argues there are several serious flaws
with the report and for future debate has hired a law firm.

Among LBHUSH2's arguments are than the EIR does not comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act, endorses a project that paves the way
for airport operations to increase in the future and does not provide
reasonable and feasible alternatives.

The organization's president, Mike Kowal, was interviewed by reporter Felix
Sanchez:

Q: Why did LBHUSH2 hire an attorney?

A: As you know, we're not scientists. We needed expert responses rather than
the scoping meetings the city was holding with residents coming up asking
questions and getting no answers. We were very disappointed as we went down
to the City Council, when the sizing (debate) was held and voted on and part
of that was to have (included) a health risk assessment that wasn't done at
all and it was very, very disappointing. We talked to people knowledgeable
about EIRs just to make sure we did the best we could to represent the
neighborhoods. It was prudent to hire an attorney that was knowledgeable in
these things. They all have attorneys and everything and residents need to
be represented in some way.

Q: The focus has been on noise but what are other major issues surrounding
the airport?

A: While noise is obviously the thing that we all experience, air quality is
a huge, huge thing. Noise we live it, hear it, suffer through it. However,
air quality is huge. Our air over the (Los Angeles) basin and the air over
Long Beach is the second worst in the state. That's disgraceful. The Chamber
of Commerce continues to want to grow that airport and shows no concern
about the protection of the public. They are on record for not caring for
the neighborhoods. They are there to protect commerce.

Q: If you had a magic wand to make the airport what LBHUSH2 wanted, what
would that be?

A: I don't know if that's answerable at this time. First I would have to
wave that magic wand and find out how much air pollution is coming from
those operations. If we really knew that, we could make some educated plans
for the future. We need a good EIR. That's the first step of good planning.

Q: Some believe that LBHUSH2 and the Long Beach Alliance are actually not
that far apart in their thinking. Is this true?

A: I think LBHUSH2 is looking at the whole picture, and the alliance or
JetBlue, are looking at a portion of the picture that benefits them and puts
money in their pockets. We're the citizens here in Long Beach and we want to
see it improved and be all it can be, but at the same time, we live under
that airport and (experience) the impact it brings to us daily. The only
thing we have protecting us is the noise ordinance. The alliance says to
protect the noise ordinance the same as us. How to do that? Set some sort of
airport litigation fund, funded by the airport users themselves, to forever
protect against any challenges to the noise ordinance.

Q: To accomplish your goals, do you foresee filing a lawsuit at any point?

A: I don't know. That's yet to be determined. That is an option, no doubt
about that. Whatever the appropriate action is needs to be at the point of
time when the final EIR comes out.

Q: The Southern California Association of Governments is on record as saying
a regional solution is needed to handle growing air travel demands in
Southern California. But it's also acknowledged that Long Beach Airport is
capped by the noise ordinance and so solutions should come from Ontario and
Palmdale, among others. Does that make you feel secure Long Beach will be
left alone?

A: As long as there's an airport, there always will be an opening. Long
Beach is a very, very inviting place to fly out of now. They're doing a
better job than any other airport. Everybody knows we're going to have more
flights out of the Southern California basin. It's a given. Where to expand
to is part of the question. SCAG has said in the past that Long Beach is
going to have to grow. They're on record. The FAA has said Long Beach is
going to have to increase their capacity.

So it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when we'll be challenged. The
"if you build it, they will come" hasn't been addressed in the EIR. Only a
minimum should be built. Anything more than that will encourage more
flights. (The other) side says if you don't build it, they will sue us. That
is the most stupid thing I've heard of. The city owns Long Beach Airport. If
the city wants to, they can shut it down.

Q: How have LBHUSH2's positions been perceived or reported by the media, in
particular the Press-Telegram?

A: I don't think our message has gone out since the beginning of our cause.
At the beginning, we were identified as a very small, vocal minority group.
Specifically, the coverage of the Press-Telegram has not been done
accurately. The latest and best example was the headline that came out after
the release of the draft of the EIR, stating that bigger is better. Bigger
is not better. (Quoting the draft EIR:) "The proposed project does not
result in substantially greater impact." The key word is substantially, so
of course it does increase impact. So the Press-Telegram spun that into
bigger and better, which is totally untrue.

Q: Along those lines, what's been the most frustrating part of leading
LBHUSH2 and the whole airport expansion debate?

A: It's been frustrating. Again, I have to put the Press-Telegram in the top
two or three things. The Airport Advisory Commission, in my perception, is a
stacked deck of cards with mostly non-impacted airport residents. They're
appointed by a mayor backed by the Chamber of Commerce that wants growth and
wants to see the convention center full of people and Long Beach (become) a
tourist mecca. Nobody wants to talk about the environmental impacts.

Q: Some have described the Long Beach Alliance as pro-business and
pro-airport growth. What do you think?

A: I think that's accurate. I think they are pro-business, pro-growth. Why
expand the airport if it's not putting money into their pockets at the
expense of the residential neighborhoods around the airport?

Q: Do you think the airport issue and EIR will be handled differently
considering the city is in the middle of elections?

A: Good question. I know all the candidates for mayor are addressing it one
way or another. All the candidates are saying they strongly support the
noise ordinance but no one has come up with a plan on how to protect it.
Nobody has talked about how big (the airport) should be. No one is talking
about the number of (ticketing) gates or the number of (plane) parking
positions that should be allowed. Those are things that can determine the
size of the airport. There are two council districts totally impacted by the
airport. It might be notable that both (former council members) were voted
out of office because of their stance, or non-stance, on airport growth.

 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


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