January 19th, 2017

1/19/2017

Are We Loud Enough?

"I just learned something valuable from my two year old...the louder he is, the quicker I listen. Let's be loud. Let's get them to listen. Share with anyone you can."
Rita Nayak, West Bixby Knolls

Most of us can all relate to this scenario. Either through our own experiences with our children or sharing toddler time with family or friends. It's the old adage- the squeaky wheel......
We have added nearly 120 new names to the LBNF roster! We have over 100 new volunteers who are canvassing the districts with NO INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS fliers! We have reached out to citywide leaders to hear their thoughts and shared many documents and suggestions with Mayor Garcia and all 9 council members. We have done outreach through local media, Facebook and yes even some Twitter!

This specific attempt to place additional risks on our coveted noise ordinance (only one of five in the country) has been ongoing since 2013. Our new terminal was officially opened in 2013. Shortly after the Grand Opening in 2013 was when Jet Blue initiated their request with then LGB Director, Mario Rodriquez. They met with CBP, communicated with the FAA, hired Frasca & Associates to complete an economic study, provided several blue prints of schematic possibilities and even presented LGB with a term sheet. All of this without receiving any direction from our city council! After the 2014 elections your HUSH2 team met with Mayor Garcia and all council members willing to talk with us. We provided them with the historical documents of LGB litigation history from 1980-2006. We offered to meet and help each of them in any way that we could. Unfortunately, not one individual thought it prudent to continue with our conversations.

This Tuesday, January 24th the city council will cast their final vote to either deny the Jet Blue request or grant JB and city staff to move forward on this project. The agenda item is worded to suggest their will be other points of approval, but the reality is "this plane will have left the gate....".

If council members from District 1,2,3,5,6 and 9 ( or at least two of them) don't join the efforts of Supernaw, Austin and Uranga to keep our airport "municipal", HUSH2 will begin staging for resident litigation efforts much like the 1700 residents did in the 80's. But more importantly our focus will be about building an army to go against all districts and the mayor who will be running for reelection in April 2018. The Mayoral position and Districts 3 & 5 are most vulnerable. Districts 3,5 and 8 have the highest number of voters and their support is crucial to win the mayoral seat.

We will be posting some of the communications we have shared with our elected officials and comments from several of our Long Beach citizens over the next few days. Please check back periodically for updates between now and Tuesday, 24th. And of course, your comments are encouraged.

Madelyn Reynolds

1/19/2017 04:41:58 pm

Thankyou Hush2 Board and all your active members!!!
You have been so diligent and hard working re this ridiculous and frustrating airport challenge.

I've had a sign in my front yard constantly from the beginning. Several other residents in our Los Altos/Abbyfield neighborhood are showing support with signs as well. It would be great to make your comments and thoughts on the situation more WIDE SPREAD by having those in the group...post the info...updates in "their" areas of the divided up "Nextdoor" website. So many, many residents who ARE interested in their community do review this site....both on their mobile phone as well as their reg computers. Great free way to spread the word!!!
Also....perhaps ask for donations asap....to place ONE LARGE 1/2 page ARTICLE in Press Telegram on Sat or SUn or Mon.....I'm sure if enough donated it could also get more at the Council Mtg.
I will definitely show up....AGAIN! Thanks again!

Rae Gabelich

1/20/2017 05:04:40 pm

Hi Madelyn,

Thanks for reaching out. Does your NextDoor site connect with District 3 (Belmont Shore area)? We are looking for volunteers to walk fliers in that area tomorrow. We did put a 1/2 page ad in The Signal and lbreport is doing coverage on it is well. Keep talking it up with friends and neighbors. It should be all over your 4th District NextDoor pages. Let me know please.

lori

1/19/2017 08:43:39 pm

where do i get signs for my yard. is there a petition or place to send letters or emails to protest?

Rae Gabelich

1/20/2017 05:06:41 pm

Hi Lori, When you check in on the Home page of this site it has a form to fill in for signs. It also lists all 9 council offices and the mayor to voice your opinions. Hoping you and your neighbors will be at the council this Tuesday to SHOW your against this project.

Chris Osborn

1/20/2017 10:10:20 am

Here are links for 3 health studies that discuss the health impacts of living near airports. I don't want my kids breathing any more exhaust than they already do, whether at home or at school. An international airport just opens the door for more air traffic.

http://www.columbia.edu/~ws2162/articles/SchlenkerWalker.pdf

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/environmental/investigations/logan/logan-airport-health-study-final.pdf

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0529-lax-pollution-20140529-story.html

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es5001566

Rae Gabelich

1/20/2017 05:10:31 pm

Thank you Chris! Once I get the chance to read them I will post all pertinent portions on our website.

Hope you and your family will be part of the Movement and attend this Tuesdays council meeting. This FIS decision is the only thing on the agenda. They will cast their votes to determine if the approve or disapprove. Remember, it is all political!

Craig Adam

1/21/2017 11:28:34 am

Another often forgotten environmental factor is Noise Pollution. Many laugh but it has been shown that noise has many bad effects on people outside of just losing their hearing. These effects can start at levels just above the normal speech range and have been documented in a 2007 Southern Medical Journal article which can be found at:
http://www.nonoise.org/library/smj/smj.htm

Fred Esch

1/21/2017 01:21:02 pm

I believe the two main council members office phone numbers and email addresses should be published, so that it can be posted in the 3 districts www.nextdoor.com sites for everyone to call and write. The message should be that if they vote for the airport expansion for int'l flights, we will actively participate in support of someone running against them in the next election as well as donate funds to see them defeated in their districts. There are no walls between districts and we will actively oppose them.

Rae Gabelich

1/21/2017 05:06:04 pm

Already done Fred. We have distributed 8K fliers with all council and mayor contact info. We are beginning to publicly state the intentions of going against any office who votes in favor of this FIS facility that serves only Jet Blue.

Fred Esch

1/22/2017 09:56:54 am

Here's what I sent to the Mayor, and districts 3, 5, and 8 council people, feel free to use it as a template.

Councilperson YYYYY,

As a resident of District 7, I beseech you to support the residents of Districts 4, 7 and 8 against adding international flights and facilities to the LGB airport. We that live under and near the flight paths as well as the aircraft and automobile traffic generated pollution by the airport activities want no approval to increase what we have tolerated thus far. Just as we in the aforementioned districts support issues that are of critical concern in your district, we ask that you place yourself in our situation and support us.

The addition requested may seem benign, but it is a crack in the door which will open opportunities for law suits by others who see LGB international slots as a more economical solution to LAX or SNA costly and restricted international slots. We already suffer from more than occasional loud landings after10pm, often after midnight, by airlines that departed from the east too late and found the fines to be cheaper than cancelling their departures, or to position aircraft in the LA area or to pay for hotels to their passengers. International flights will aggravate this even further as their cancellation costs will be even higher.

The FIS study was performed by a company that has a conflict of interest as they are also one of the US governments top 30 subcontractors for airport faclity design and constructions for the Federal government. They have not recused themselves from bidding on the FIS facility if approved.

Finally, we (myself and my neighbors and members of HUSH2) WILL actively participate, cross district lines, in future election campaigns to support, both in person and financially the opponents to those council members who support the FIS facility at LGB airport, regardless of district. We in districts 4, 7 and 8 are generally higher wealth families and individuals that CAN and WILL utilize their discretionary funds to see FIS facility supporters are defeated.

Thanks for your attention and considerations on this matter.

respectfully,

Michael LoGrande

1/22/2017 11:11:23 am

January 22, 2017
Michael LoGrande

Honorable Mayor and City Council

City of Long Beach, CA
Subject: Item No. 7 (17-0041), Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to negotiate with interested Long Beach carriers or operators a financial agreement for the development of a Customs and Border Protection facility at the Long Beach Airport, subject to further City Council action approving the final terms and conditions of the agreement; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute and submit all documents necessary to the United States Department of Homeland Security for designation of the Long Beach Airport as a United States Customs and Border Protection User Fee Airport for the processing of aircraft, passengers and baggage arriving from outside the United States. (Citywide)
Significant Impacts
Below are significant issues and potential unmitigated environmental impacts found in City of Long Beach’s reliance upon Jacobs Engineering’s Feasibility Study (“Study”) evaluating the viability of constructing a Federal Inspection Services facility (“Facility”) at Long Beach Airport (“Project”). Environmental Compliance Assessment and Facility Siting Alternatives sections and appendices (“App-B” and “App- D,” respectively).

Generally, the Study concludes that the Project would not have any significant impacts that were not previously studied under the 2006 Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Report No. 37-03 (SCH No. 2003091112) (“FEIR 37-03”) approved by the Long Beach City Council on June 20, 2006 (see Study, pp. 15; App-B, p. 28; Q&A, p. 11). It reaches this conclusion by arguing that the FEIR 37-03 evaluated 102,850 square feet (sq.ft.) of terminal area improvements and up to 14 aircraft parking positions (Study, p. 16), only a portion of those improvements have since been built (App-B, p. 3), there remains 37,681 sq.ft. still available (id. at p. 4), and the Facility would be less than that under any of the options considered (ranging between 35,051 to 6,750 new floor area) (Study, p. 31; App-B, p. 1), none of which call for more than 12 parking positions (id. at p. 19). Additionally, the Study assumes that the Facility’s workforce (i.e. Homeland Security, TSA staff) is within the operational activities studied under the FEIR 37-03 and that international flights would not expect to change the fleet mix currently operating at the airport (Q&A, p. 12; App-A, p. 24; Opinion Letter, Exhibit B, p. 2 [ airport “would use aircraft of the same type currently operating.”]; id., Exhibit 3, p. 2 [JetBlue’s fleet will use “same aircraft type now operating at the [a]irport in domestic serves.”).

However, despite the City’s heavy reliance on its consistency with FEIR 37-03, neither Jacobs nor the City provides the original FEIR 37-03 evaluation to confirm any of the Study’s conclusions and assumptions. Specifically, the following:

¥ Whether the Project poses new impacts or if new mitigation measures have been developed since 2006 (Study, p. 16).
¥ Whether the buildout studied under FEIR 37-03 is “apples to apples” to the buildout proposed for the Facility (Study, pp. 19, 26). Whether previously studied buildout was in the same location as the proposed sites (Study, pp. 26-30).
¥ Whether the future modification to the “airfield layout plan,” requiring Federal Aviation Administration approval, was previously studied (Study, pp. 16, 20). Whether said modification would increase impact to existing receptors or expose new sensitive receptors?
¥ Whether air impacts would be greater than the noted incremental increase in air emissions (Study, p. 17), considering the increase traffic demand posed by Homeland Security, TSA agents, and other staff operating within the Facility.
¥ Whether operations at the Facility (400 passengers per hour) fall within the operational activities previously studied (Study, p. 24).
¥ Whether similar facilities recently developed at comparable airports (i.e. Fresno Yosemite, John Wayne) experience greater than expected noise impacts, induced traffic trips, etc. (Study, p. 25).
¥ First, the Study notes that international flights may be heavier aircraft (accommodating more fuel and luggage) and therefore have a “slightly greater” noise characteristics of domestic flights (Study, p. 18; App-B, p. 22). However, no detail is given about what is “slightly,” nor whether these noise impacts would be exacerbated if international flights extend beyond those destinations the airport expects to serve (i.e. Canada, Mexico, Central America) (Study, p. 18). I am curious to what was experienced at Yosemite, John Wayne, and other airports on this issue.
¥ Second, while the City states international flights are unlikely to replac

David Vastano

1/23/2017 09:57:11 pm

I am in full agreement with Long Beach Neighborhoods First's opinion that approval of Jet Blue's request and the customs facility is a big mistake.

Dave Formella

1/26/2017 07:50:35 am

How does adding a customs facility cause an "expansion" when the noise ordinance wouldn't have changed and the number of commercial flights would stay the same? I just don't get it...

Comments are closed.

January 19th, 2017

Are We Loud Enough?

Categories

Archives