Is LAX Planning Process inclusive? LA City Councilwoman Says 'Not Yet'

In an August interview with the Metro Investment Report, Dan Garcia asserted that the city has yet to do a cost/benefit analysis on the impacts of Mayor Hahn's proposed new LAX master plan. Is this correct? Have you been afforded sufficient information, as the Councilperson representing the airport area, to evaluate the merits of the Mayor's proposal now under review by the Airport Commission?

I have not seen a lot of data either on the cost/benefit side or on the environmental mitigation side, which would have to be done before any plan could move forward. Other than the introduction of the plan, which has been done in large measure by the Airport Commission, side-by-side and with support from the Mayor's staff, there has not been a lot of detail on this plan forthcoming in any way. The word from the Airport Commission is that, "We have consultants who are pulling together the EIR and some cost data. So, don't worry, in a few months, you will see it all." But, right now, my constituents and I, as well as the people who are interested in the airport from all perspectives, have been somewhat in the dark about the details.

The 11th District recently was redrawn to include LAX, with you now representing LAX rather than Ruth Galanter. Unincumbered by past experience, how does Mayor Hahn's proposed plans play substantively nd politically within the 11th? How have the district's stakeholders reacted to this new plan?

My eyes, as well as the community's eyes, are looking for a fresh alternative. That was accomplished. In support of his own campaign promises, the Mayor very strongly said that the old plan is off the drawing board and that we are going to look anew at this. We are going to accept the 78 million annual passenger (MAP) cap. That's the boundary. In the aftermath of September 11, he brought forward a whole new plan, a consolidation of all parking and check-in at the Manchester Square property that the airport recently tried to purchase and acquire. That then became the plan. However, other than the general concept, the plan has not been fleshed out.

I have met with the Department of Transportation and the City Planning Department‹normal advisors for reviewing a development plan such as this, particularly from the viewpoint of traffic and transportation. However, not a lot of specifics have been produced yet. The airport does have consultants on board who have been engaged in creating and preparing a draft of an environmental document. But instead of creating a new environmental document for this plan, they are patchworking it in as an analysis of a new concept adding mitigation to the old plan. In other words, the old master plan, as developed during the Riordan administration, is still technically on the books. What everyone was waiting for was the final EIR, incorporating all of the comments made on the draft in order to move forward. For this new plan, Alternative D, the consultants are not doing a new EIR. They will offer the new plan as an alternative to the old plan, which raises a whole lot of environmental questions.

Putting that aside, what the community wants, what I want, and what the industry wants is to know how this plan will work. Where is that detailed environmental analysis? Analysis of the traffic? Analysis of the planning implications? This is particularly important to the area known as Manchester Square, which is immediately adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods, just a few streets away. That kind of analysis has not yet been done. I, along with the community, want to see how this new and complex idea will work.

The number $10 billion has been has been rumored to be the cost of covering LAX improvements and enhancements to the current facility as outlined in the newly proposed master plan. Is that the number? If so, does its magnitude affect the way you have approached your council oversight responsibilities re the Airport?

You cannot hear a number like that and not be overwhelmed by it. Every time we hear the number, we hear that more may have to be added to realistically complete the plan. Moreover, that number does not include additional ground access needs. Does Caltrans have to build new off-ramp and/or onramp capacity along Century Boulevard or on the 405? Every time you talk about adding another qualified mitigation or another facet to the plan, the price increases. That $10 billion, which started at $8 billion, has been increasing even without any details being fleshed out. And, in light of what we have seen unfold with the bankruptcy of United Airlines, one of the major providers of passenger and freight service at LAX, we now have serious questions about whether, or if, a plan of that magnitude and at that cost is something to which we can look to solve our problems in the near term and in the future.

Let's return to TPR's recent interview with Dan Garcia, in which he suggested that the Mayor's plan was developed "in a vacuum to satisfy short-term political interests rather than as a real solution to the region's aviation dilemma." The spokesman for the Mayor's plan-some have argued the author of the plan-Ted Stein, the president of the Airport Commission, has been unavailable for comment. Could you comment on Dan's pointed criticism and provide your own assessment of the merits of the proposed master plan?

Well, I'm not sure that the plan came out of a vacuum. It came from a concern of trying to limit passenger traffic at LAX to 78 million annual passengers. And, if one asks where that number comes from, 78 MAP is considered today's existing capacity of LAX if it were to do nothing more. With every regional planning organization supporting the notion of dispersing our aviation traffic in Southern California, the 78 MAP cap suggests that LAX serve at its existing capacity, but no more than that, until there is an adequate and enforceable regional dispersal plan.

The Mayor was elected on this platform and it is the linchpin of our regional approach to aviation traffic. The question is, do we create a regional solution at LAX by way of this $10 billion plan? Or, do we limit to 78 MAP by looking at what could be done for one or two billion dollars to revamp our existing facility? Dan Garcia makes a good point in his interview by saying that, despite the growing frustration in the region, at present LAX works. We may not like the lines or hassles about security, but, essentially, it works. Even in the peak travel periods, as long as you plan ahead-like one does at almost any other airport around the country-you arrive and it's convenient. Having convenient and reasonably available access to the airport is part of LA's culture.

How could we work within that existing structure and make it work better? I'd like to see what they could do if we go back to the drawing board-which should not take a long time-to determine how best to accommodate the existing capacity within the existing design and function of the airport and for obviously a lot less money. At the same time, we could use that capacity limit as leverage for other areas in the region to accept their "fair share" of air traffic in a regional air transportation system.

With voters having approved substantive city charter changes in Los Angeles, what is the present role and responsibility of the Council, particularly for you and the district you represent, in the evolution of the LAX plan? What role does the Airport Commission have? The Mayor's office? If we are to hold our governing institutions accountable, whom should we now hold responsible re LAX?

I'm not convinced that the roles have changed substantially among the Airport Commission, the Mayor, and the Council with regard to this issue. The airport has always been a proprietary department. Thus, they have had much more of an independent role in offering enhancements to the airport and in looking at the consequences. The entire system still is based on checks and balances. The City Council can call for consideration of an airport action. The master plan has to be approved by the City Council. So, there is a significant role here for the Council.

Right now, what I have been most concerned about as we move forward is the apparent void in interaction and information exchange with the public at large. In the Fall, I wrote a letter to the Commission president asking for a more open planning process. To that end I am creating an LAX Working Group of citizen members who represent communities and businesses in the area. The working group should be provided the details about of what is being developed and put forward, what kinds of questions are being asked and what types of alternatives are being reviewed. That working group will be formed shortly after the first of the year. The group will not necessarily have veto power, but it will be a working group of community leaders who can have input and receive information. We want this to be a plan that was not just plucked out of thin air. We want alternatives to have been reviewed and public concerns vetted in an accessible format.

In a number of interviews in Metro Investment Report-Steve Erie, Dan Garcia, Roger Cohen-it has been pointed out that the Manchester Square pick-up and drop-off facility that's being proposed in the new plan is an example of a significant investment with questionable returns. What are your thoughts on the Manchester Square element of the proposal?

The idea of a consolidated center for pick-up and drop-off, ticketing and parking is not unlike what we see at other major national and international airports. It can work well. However, in other areas of the world where this type of facility has been created, there has been a lot of land available to plan and build. In most cases, the airport planners could control all aspects of the flow of people in and out of the facility.

Here in L.A., it will be much more difficult to create that kind of a facility in an already built-out urban environment. Granted, we are purchasing properties at Manchester Square on a voluntary basis, but is that enough? What does that do for the other businesses that are beyond Manchester Square? What will it do to the hotels and the other businesses that support the airport and the airlines that are between Manchester Square and the airport today? They cannot easily relocate. How will the new facility impact the existing adjoining residential neighborhoods in the area?

The details of how specifically this plan will work have not been forthcoming. It is going to take a lot of effort to fit this facility into a very tight space. There is not a lot of room to accomplish the necessary traffic mitigation to have everybody access this one facility from all directions. In fact, traffic will have to be cut off in some directions because of the presence of residential streets.

Board president Ted Stein has said that this is a non-negotiable part of the Mayor's plan. How do you respond to his assertion?

I don't know that I have seen in this city's history or in any other political setting something that is truly non-negotiable. It must have flexibility. The plan must be able to provide answers to questions of concern. Non-negotiable means "this is it, take it or leave it." That does not follow the normal process of law, let alone the democratic process. I would say that this plan still has some way to go.

The City has spent more than $100 million in the last decade on plans for revitalizing LAX. There have been a lot of plans, a lot of discussions, and a lot of questions. It now seems, however, that you can't get any answers or direction without speaking to one person - the president of the Airport Commission. Is that the way it's supposed to be? With all of the money being spent, all of the consultants who have been hired, and all of the stakeholders involved, should there be only one point person who holds the information on the direction of LAX's future?

It's fine that we have one spokesman, but I don't think all of the knowledge, all of the answers, and all of the communications can rely on one person. That's asking too much. With an issue of this complexity, of this magnitude, that is this far-reaching, and with this many implications, it is inconceivable that only one person has the answers. We need more information and buy-in from a variety of sources. I subscribe to the kind of public participation process that allows many people to have input. I know that if we bring a lot of people together as a working group around a table and ask the right questions, we will achieve a greater solution.

The airport is just one of your concerns; what is on your council and political agenda for the new CD11? What priorities have emerged?

In the new territories of the district-Westchester, Venice, Playa Del Rey-the airport and Playa Vista continue to be prominent. Both are becoming very active again in the planning arena.

These are exciting, vibrant, and wonderful communities and I'm looking forward to continuing working with them. At its neighborhood council meeting, Westchester had over 1,000 people come out to vote on who should fill the board positions. It was really town hall democracy at its finest. We have incredible communities there. When I attended the Venice Neighborhood Council, over 300 people attended. There is a lot of healthy debate and in a very inclusionary manner. And, the communities are not homogeneous in their array of ideas and suggestions. So we have strong working groups with a lot of ideas.

Lastly, Is the boroughs idea dead in L.A.?

The boroughs idea will likely be shelved for a while. Recently, the Mayor spoke with the former candidates in the Valley and asked for six months to let him try to restructure the existing city system. The Mayor wants to make city services more available and accessible at the neighborhood level. That was the ultimate goal of boroughs, to bring decision-making and service provision closer to the people who benefit from them. Although the boroughs idea may be shelved for now, the spirit of what boroughs stand for-bringing government and decision-making closer to the people-is very much alive.