The Los Angeles City Council on April 17 voted to allow three consultant contracts connected to the Los Angeles International Airport master plan to stand, after several hours of public comment and debate. Council members rejected motions to disapprove the contracts, leaving the agreements in place as approved earlier by the Board of Airport Commissioners.

The contracts are tied to the city’s joint environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for the LAX master plan and include work on technical studies, community outreach and land-use planning. Supporters said the city needs the technical work to complete the EIR/EIS; opponents said portions of the contracts go beyond technical response work and amount to promotion of an expansion.

The issue matters because the EIR/EIS and related consultant work will shape what options the council considers next year on whether to approve any LAX build-out. The contracts will fund studies, outreach and planning tasks needed to respond to public comments and to refine alternatives that feed into the master plan.

Speakers who urged approval included Victor Franco, deputy director of legislative affairs for the Central City Association, who told the council, “we urge you that, you move forward these contracts and they not be withdrawn in mid process of the public comment period of the LAX master plan.” Jerry Jaffe of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce voiced the chamber’s support for the three motions to keep the contracts. John McCracken, an air traffic controller, said modernization is needed to address safety risks: “We must modernize Los Angeles.” Labor and industry representatives including Bonnie Ekimura of Sheet Metal Workers Local 108 and Jim Hilphinhouse of Labor Local 300 also urged the council not to stop the contracts because of potential job and safety impacts.

Opponents included Councilmember Nithya Galanter, who read scope-of-work language from the contracts and argued that some tasks—cited in the transcript as legal descriptions for street vacations and public-opinion research—looked like promotion rather than technical EIR work. “They are not telling you the truth,” she said of the department’s representations, and urged the council to send the contracts back to remove items she described as promotional. Environmental advocates including Geralyn Lopez Mendoza of Environmental Defense’s Environmental Justice Project also testified that noise, air and health impacts raised equity concerns that must be resolved in the master plan before the city funds promotional outreach.

Lydia Kennard of Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) told the council the dispute is principally about process, not the master plan’s merits. Kennard said the contracts support outreach and detailed responses to the large number of anticipated public comments and that LAWA anticipates “25 to 30,000 comments” during the public comment period.

Council members debated the choice between pausing consultant work and allowing the contracts to proceed so the EIR/EIS can be completed on schedule. Councilmember Michael Feuer summarized that the central question at the dais was whether the city would “get information on which to base a decision” rather than pre-judge the master plan.

After a point-of-order exchange and two rounds of roll calls, the council voted on separate motions to disapprove (veto) each contract. The motions failed and the contracts will remain in effect as previously approved by the Board of Airport Commissioners.

Votes at a glance
- Item 14 (contract A vs. B): motion to disapprove failed — contract remains approved (final roll-call stated in the transcript as 4 ayes, 6 noes).
- Item 15 (URS contract — zoning/relocation work): motion to disapprove failed — contract remains approved (final roll-call stated as 4 ayes, 6 noes).
- Item 16 (public outreach/communications contract): motion to disapprove failed — contract remains approved (final roll-call stated as 4 ayes, 6 noes).

What the council did not decide today was whether to approve any final master plan. Several council members said the next council will have the substantive vote on a plan; the contracts fund work expected to provide the technical record and public responses the next council will review.

The council’s action leaves LAWA’s consultant team in place to continue work on the joint EIR/EIS and associated outreach. Council members and city attorneys said they will follow up with written guidance that the contracts do not allow advocacy, and department staff agreed to circulate that guidance to consultants and subcontractors.

The council’s debate highlighted a recurring regional question: whether LAX should be modernized as proposed or whether the region should pursue a more distributed, regional airport system (Palmdale, Ontario, others). That larger policy debate remains unresolved and will be the subject of future decision-making once the environmental record is complete.

Ending
The contracts remain active and LAWA will proceed with the EIR/EIS work and outreach as the city and federal partners complete the environmental review. Council members and LAWA staff said the completed record should help the next council decide whether and how to proceed with a master plan for LAX.