Seventh District Councilmember Roberto Uranga has asked that the Dec. 13 meeting be a mere study session. His request will be considered on Tuesday, Dec. 6. Uranga was unavailable for an interview with the Signal Tribune, but he offered the reasons for his request for a session to study the request for a federal inspection service (FIS) facility in a staff report.
“Given the continued community interest in the proposed FIS facility and the extensive information contained in the feasibility study, including logistical, noise and economic impacts,” he wrote, “it is important that we, the city council, hear the item as a study session for the city council, as a whole, to hear community input and to receive additional clarification from staff before the matter is voted on by the city council.”
JetBlue Airways, the airport’s largest tenant, requested an FIS facility nearly two years ago. If the City is serious about allowing international flights out of the currently domestic-service airport, that federal-customs facility is one necessary step in that direction.
However, just talking about the issue at this time of the year has brought out critics.
Former councilmember, and leader of the community-advocacy group LB HUSH2, Rae Gabelich said in a phone interview Wednesday that the discussion shouldn’t happen around the holidays. Gabelich expressed her concern that the community members may not be able to attend the meetings. She said that the city manager’s office determined the date to discuss the airport facility, and if there are at least half of the council who don’t think that the discussion shouldn’t take place, they merely have to ask the manager to hold over the item for a future date.
“Unfortunately, it’s something that happens in city government,” Gabelich concluded. “It’s a way to not get the crowds that you may get otherwise, and it’s a disservice, in my opinion, to the public and residents of Long Beach.”
Fourth District Councilmember Daryl Supernaw agrees that the holidays are a bad time to touch the subject, but he did support Uranga’s motion to ensure that the scope of the discussion on Dec. 13 would be a study session on the issue.
The request for an FIS facility has already been studied by other groups. Uranga had noted in his staff report that there have been two community meetings and that the feasibility study has also been presented to both the Economic Development and the Airport Advisory Commissions. The item had been scheduled for the city council to discuss in November, however it had been rescheduled to Dec. 13.
Supernaw said that to even bring up the agenda item, even in a study session “is not a great idea, either,” however he did add that at least it “would be better than actually having to vote at that time.” He criticized one aspect of the feasibility report that promised an economic benefit to the region. He said the report did not necessarily cover the economic impact to the city of Long Beach.
That’s a viewpoint shared by many who have voiced opposition to an international airport and who feel that the report said that an international airport only offers a benefit to the region, not the city.
Supernaw was quick to add that he had voted earlier this year against doing the study.
“So, I can’t comment about the rules of the game that I didn’t want to play in the first place,” Supernaw said with a chuckle.
If the request for a study session on Dec. 13 was specifically intended to delay any vote to approve the FIS facility, that strategy could have a fatal flaw.
Third District Councilmember Suzie Price was the other city leader who supported Uranga’s motion to have a study session on Dec. 13. However, she did understand that the scope of the discussion is not necessarily limited to researching and discussing the issue, even if that study session is approved at the Dec. 6 meeting. She added that the council could make a decision on Dec. 13, after the study is completed.
“So, the vote could still happen that night,” she said in a phone interview. “That’s my understanding, but it can’t happen before a study session, and I think it’s important that we have a study session so that everyone can proceed with all of their questions answered and all of the data that they need.”
In past meetings, most of the residents who have chosen to speak during the public-comment period have been against having an international airport. However, Price said that her residents and other constituents have generally liked the idea.
“We’ve received!overwhelming support in our district for it,” Price said, adding quickly that the residents in the 3rd District are not impacted by the same noise issues that other residents in other districts may be experiencing. She described the support by the business community and especially by the residents, who favor the idea of the convenience of being able to travel internationally.
Supernaw confirmed it is possible that next week the council could make another motion altogether— to delay any talk of the airport facility until next year.
JetBlue Airways did not respond to the Signal Tribune’s request for a comment on this issue before press time.
