City Council approves United Airlines cargo terminal after split vote; opponents urge full EIR

The Los Angeles City Council voted on Dec. 10 to approve a lease and construction plan for United Airlines’ proposed replacement cargo terminal at Los Angeles International Airport, adopting a mitigated negative declaration rather than ordering a new full environmental impact report.

The measure — advanced by a minority committee report that argued the project’s environmental effects can be mitigated and that the company’s workers urgently need improved facilities — passed on a roll-call vote of 8 yes, 4 no. Councilman Savorich moved the substitute that the council approve the project; Councilman Pacheco seconded the motion.

Why it mattered: opponents, including nearby city officials and community groups, pressed the council to require a full EIR to evaluate cumulative effects — especially diesel truck emissions, increased truck traffic near Century Boulevard and related public-health risks. “An environmental impact review is the right and just report to do,” Mike Gordon, mayor of El Segundo, told the council, saying nearby residents “deserve to know what negative impacts will be received by this project.”

Supporters, including union and construction representatives and United Airlines, said the proposal replaces an obsolete, partly open-air cargo facility with an enclosed terminal that will improve safety and working conditions for cargo handlers and create construction jobs. Alan Wayne of United Airlines described the terminal as “the final piece of a $260 million investment United has made at LAX over the last five years,” and said it will “provide significantly better and safer working conditions for our employees.”

Legal and procedural stakes: Council members debated whether the mitigated negative declaration legally suffices under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or whether the project’s scope required the more comprehensive EIR process. Committee testimony and city attorney advice were contested in committee and on the floor about whether courts could successfully challenge the council’s action. Several council members asked to discuss litigation strategy in closed session.

Key claims and responses: opponents pointed to city and airport planning documents and to an earlier airport staff memo recommending an EIR for cargo growth south of Century Boulevard; they argued that doubling cargo-handling capacity can raise diesel emissions and delay a full master-plan study of cumulative airport impacts. Project backers countered that detailed traffic, air-quality and noise studies were prepared and that mitigation measures, including voluntary commitments by United to convert ground service equipment to alternative fuels by 2002, reduce any significant impacts.

Votes and motion: the substitute (minority) report — effectively approving the lease and the mitigated negative declaration with associated mitigation measures and conditions — carried 8–4. The council simultaneously adopted the mitigated negative declaration and related findings.

What’s next: With the council’s approval, the airport and United may proceed with design and construction steps under the adopted mitigated negative declaration and conditions. Opponents indicated they will continue to pursue legal options and public engagement around truck traffic, diesel emissions, and the airport master plan. The council also signaled that broader master-plan EIR work for LAX remains an outstanding regional policy issue.

The vote concluded one of the meeting’s most contentious exchanges; the council’s action leaves in place mitigation commitments but not the full environmental study many local officials and residents had requested.