No, folks, I did not ”go over to the evil side” as the email blast going around Long Beach this morning states.
My vote on 89,995 square feet:
I have never stated publicly what my vote would be on the size of the terminal improvements. I think some people interpreted my willingness to listen to concerns about the size as an indication that I would vote for the smallest proposal of 67,000 square feet or that I would oppose any increase in the current 57,000 square feet or that I would support closing the airport.
From the beginning, I have supported maintaining our noise ordinance which limits flights to 41 commercial and 25 commuter. I do not want us to build one extra inch of airport space that would open the door to being told by the feds and the airlines that we need to accommodate more flights. That is why when I read the State of Arizona’s analysis of expanding the Tucson Airport from an existing 3.6 million annual passengers to 7.0 million annual passengers I wanted to know how the Long Beach proposals fared and what capacity the proposals would bring Long Beach.
Yes, I have raised questions concerning the link between size and capacity and who will pay for the improvements.
And yesterday, I was given the information I requested. (And perhaps I erred by not publicly announcing the information.)
Let’s recap what I was given: when I cited the State of Arizona study of “terminal capacity at Tucson” a few weeks back, I asked for the same type of figures — show me the existing space and capacity and show me the proposed space and capacity.
Coincidently, the State of Arizona reviewed capacity for increments of expansion including 4.2 million — so it was appropriate to see how the proposed modifications of the LB airport matched up.
Here’s the information I received that helped me decide my vote to add 33,675 sq feet to the existing airport:
Tucson’s estimate to accommodate 4.2 million annual passengers based upon FAA guidelines and airport design specialists:
- Gates: 20
- Holdrooms: 45,334 sq feet
- Secure Concessions: 20,160 sq feet
- Public Space/Rest Rooms Circulation space: 33,000 sq feet
Versus Long Beach’s Proposal to accommodate 4.2 million annual passengers as stated in the EIR:
- Gates: 11
- Holdrooms: 26,600
- Secure Concessions: 8,250
- Public Space/Secure Circulation/Rest Rooms: 9,420
Additionally, if we look at Tucson’s existing capacity of 3.6 million annual passengers (which is slightly less than Long Beach’s 3.2 million annual passengers) we can see how their terminal size when serving 3.6 million matches up with what we have to serve 3.2 million:
- Gates: 20 vs. 8
- Holding area: 27,482 vs. 19,650
- Concessions: 14,350 vs. 5,460
- Public space/rest rooms: 22,986 vs. mixed figure because of temporary configuration
Based upon this data, I voted to increase the size of the current facilities by 33,675 square feet.
I did not vote to “supersize” (at 130,000 or 118,00 sq. feet) or to invite additional flights — because as the figures show (from sources outside our staff and our consultant) the proposal to go to 89,995 square feet accommodates less than the 4.2 million annual passengers anticipated if everyone of our flight slots under our noise ordinance are filled.
What 89,995 square feet brings:
The following outlines our existing space by category and what is being proposed with a 89,995 square feet configuration: (e=existing p=proposed)
- Hold room area: E:19,650/ P:26,500
- Checkpoint area: E:3,900/ P:8,940
- Concession (Secure and non-secure) area: E:5,460/P:13,460
- Baggage screening: E:5,000/P:6,200
- Bag Claim: E: 226 linear feet/P: 630 linear feet
- Baggage Service Office: E: 0/ P:825
- Multi-Purpose Rooms: E: 0/ P:300
- Restrooms: E: 1,300/ P: 2,180
- TSA Office space: E: 3,600/ P: 5,000
- Airlines Operations Office: E: 2,000/ P:6,930
- Airport Conference Rooms and offices: E:6,970/ P:11,300
- Ticketing Counter: E: 1,250/ P: 1,250
- Ticket Counter Queing: E: 1,400/ P: 1,400
- Airline Ticket Office: E: 4,360/ P: 4,310
- Circulation/Ticketing: E: 1,400/ P:1,400
- Gates: E: 8/ P: 11
- Aircraft Parking Places: E: 8/ P: 11-12
- Total existing space at airport: 56,320 square feet
- Proposed space at airport: 89,885 square feet
- Increase: 33, 575 square feet
Putting in Safeguards:
Supporting Councilwoman Rae Gabelich on proposals to protect our neighborhoods, I added several provisions that would tighten up neighborhood protections:
- Require an annual report on the passenger count at the airport so that the Council could take steps before annual passenger count at airport goes beyond 4.2 million.
- Mandate that any mitigation measures shall be paid for from the Airport Enterprise Fund.
- Provide that when FAA permits, to use funds to insulate and sound proof the more than 1,000 homes in the 5th District that are in the 60 CNEL noise contour. (This was something that I campaigned on.)
Constituent Response:
I received dozens of emails and phone calls yesterday before my vote. No, they were not from the Chamber of Commerce or the airlines. 90% were my constituents in the 5th District who actually favored 97,545 square feet. The other 10% were residents of other council districts and they opposed any expansion at the airport.
I tried to use my judgment on this issue and voted for less than 97,545 but for a more reasonable size that will protect our noise ordinance while modernizing our airport.
We still have a long ways to go. The Councill will review the plans to implement this size. The Council will have to approve the financing of this size. And I will continue to ask questions and carefully weigh how I decide to vote.
So to the people who believe that I went over to the “dark side” — I would like to point out that no other member of the council has shed more light on her votes or discussed in detail what went into those votes than I have and will continue to do. That is not “evil” –that is responsible.