City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the initiation of
Impasse Appeal Proceedings with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use
Commission (“ALUC”)|1010| relating to the City of Los Angeles’ (“LA”) and Los Angeles
World Airports’ (“LAWA”) approval of the Los Angeles International Airport Specific
Plan Amendment Study project (“SPAS Project”) and certification of the related Final
Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”).
BACKGROUND:
On April 30, 2013, after a lengthy process during which the City of Culver City
submitted extensive public comments in opposition, the LA City Council approved
the Specific Plan Amendment Study (SPAS) related to the proposed expansion at
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and certified the related FEIR. The SPAS
Project was a result of a stipulated settlement in a 2005 lawsuit against Los Angeles,
to which Culver City was a party. The goal of the SPAS process was to identify
amendments to the LAX Specific Plan that plan for the expansion and improvement
of LAX in a manner designed for a capacity of 78.9 million passengers annually,
while enhancing safety and security, minimizing environmental impacts on the
|1010| Airport Land Use Commissions have been established for all counties within the State of California with public use
airports and were formed with the specific intent of implementing state law (Public Utilities Code) regarding airports and
surrounding l and use compatibility.
Meeting Date: 05/28/2013 Item Number: __C-6
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Initiation
of Impasse Appeal Proceedings with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use
Commission Relating to the City of Los Angeles’ and Los Angeles World Airports’
Approval of the Los Angeles International Airport Specific Plan Amendment Study
Project and Certification of the Related Final Environmental Impact Report.
Contact Person/Dept.: Carol Schwab,
City Attorney; Heather Baker, Assistant
City Attorney
Phone Number: 310-253-5660
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Agenda and Meetings – City Council (05/21/13);
Department Approval:
Carol Schwab (05/21/13)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (05/21/13)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (05/21/13)
City Manager Approval:
John Nachbar (05/21/13) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
surrounding communities and creating conditions that encourage airlines to go to
other airports in the region.
The approval of the SPAS Project by the LA City Council was preceded by the LA
City Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval and ALUC’s finding that
the SPAS Project is consistent with the LA County Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan.
The City submitted written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(“DEIR”) and the FEIR for the SPAS Project and provided testimony (either in person
or in writing) during the hearings for each stage of the approval process. Culver
City’s comments focused on numerous impacts, including noise impacts to the areas
next to or near LAX; increases in airport-related traffic as LAX’s capacity is
increased, as Culver City’s streets are already impacted significantly by persons
traveling to and from LAX; potential shifts in local traffic patterns resulting from the
development of new ground transportation facilities at LAX; and air quality impacts
on Culver City and nearby communities, particularly if runways are relocated closer
to adjacent communities. The City’s comments and testimony also concluded that
the FEIR is inadequate because: (1) it fails to adequately analyze the Project’s
capacity-enhancing impacts, including increased over flight of Culver City; (2) the
Project was not consistent with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan; and
(3) it fails to adequately analyze the air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, land use and
planning and surface traffic impacts of the Project. In addition, the City commented
that the FEIR did not provide for adequate mitigation of these and other impacts,
including regionalization alternatives.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the inadequacies in the FEIR’s evaluation and mitigation of project
impacts, there are certain options the City Council may consider in order to
challenge or respond to LA’s and LAWA’s approval of the SPAS Project. In order to
avoid a legal challenge, the City has chosen one option by proposing to enter into
mediation with LAWA to obtain needed mitigation measures for the City. In
compliance with the statutory timeframes under the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”), on May 7, 2013, the City, jointly with the cities of Inglewood and
Ontario and the County of San Bernardino, submitted to LAWA a Notice Requesting
Mediation. As of the date of this report, LAWA has not responded to the City’s
request.
Another remedy the City has with regard to the SPAS Project approval is filing a
challenge to ALUC’s determination that the SPAS Project is consistent with the LA
County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. This process is called an “impasse
appeal” and applies only to the County of Los Angeles. Under the impasse appeal
procedures, if ALUC changes its determination of consistency, LAWA would not be City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
able to go forward with the SPAS Project, unless the LA City Council votes, by a
super majority, to overturn it.
The City Council’s prior direction has been to preserve all of the City’s rights in order
to protect the Culver City community from the SPAS Project’s impacts, which
direction has been consistently stated on the public record: 1) the City submitted
written comments and/or provided oral testimony at multiple hearings during the
lengthy approval process of the SPAS Project, including hearings before the Board
of Airport Commissioners, LA City Planning Commission, the LA City Council, as
well as at the County’s ALUC hearing on March 27, 2013; and 2) the City exercised
its right to request formal mediation by serving a Notice Requesting Mediation on the
City of LA and LAWA (as discussed above). Based on such direction and this
position of the City Council, an Impasse Appeal was administratively filed with
ALUC on May 20, 2013 (Attachment 1), as there were deadlines that needed to be
met, particularly the ability to file jointly with co-petitioners City of Ontario and County
of San Bernardino. However, ALUC also requires a formal resolution of the
governing body of the public jurisdiction bringing the appeal (in this case, the City
Council). Therefore, the proposed Resolution (Attachment 2), if adopted, will
confirm the initiation of the Impasse Appeal proceedings. If the City Council
determines that it does not want the Appeal to move forward, it can decline to adopt
the resolution, and the City will withdraw the appeal.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The City would be sharing equally in the costs of the Impasse Appeal process with
the City of Ontario and the County of San Bernardino. It is estimated that Culver
City’s portion of such costs could be approximately $5,000.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Impasse Appeal
2. Proposed Resolution
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the initiation of Impasse Appeal proceedings with
ALUC relating to the City of LA’s and LAWA’s approval of the SPAS Project and
certification of the related FEIR.
MEETING DATE: 05/28/13
AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Initiation of
Impasse Appeal Proceedings with the Los Angeles
County Airport Land Use Commission Relating to the
City of Los Angeles' and Los Angeles World Airports'
Approval of the Los Angeles International Airport
Specific Plan Amendment Study Project and
Certification of the Related Final Environmental Impact
Report.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Impasse Appeal
1-7
2. Proposed Resolution
8-9 BuchalterNemer
A Professional Law Colporation
18400 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 800 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-0514
TELEPHONE (949)760-112! /FAX (949) 720-0182
Direct Dial Number: (949) 224-6292
Direct Facsimile Number: (949) 224-6480
E-Mail Address: blichman@buchaltencom
May 20, 2013
VIA FACSIMILE ((213)626-0434), ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY U.S. MAIL
David W. Louie, Chair
Los Angeles County Department of Regional
Planning
Attn: Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
320 West Temple Street
13th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Impasse Appeal by Cities of Culver City and Ontario, and County of San
Bernardino - Project No. R2013-00396-(2); Aviation Case No. 201300001 -
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Project (City of Los Angeles)
Dear Mr. Louie:
The Cities of Culver City and Ontario, and County of San Bernardino ("Cities/County")
have reached an impasse with the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports
(collectively "LAWA") regarding the Los Angeles International Airport ("LAX") Specific Plan
Amendment Study Project ("SPAS Project"). Pursuant to the California State Aeronautics Act,
Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21670.2(a), and the "Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission
Review Procedures," Cities/County hereby submit this Impasse Appeal to the Los Angeles
County Department of Regional Planning, sitting as the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use
Commission ("ALUC"). This appeal is based on: (1) LAWA' s failure to submit to the ALUC,
and the ALUC' s failure to consider, the entire SPAS Project when determining its consistency
with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP"); (2) the ALUC' s
consequent failure to consider the SPAS Project's manifest inconsistency with the ALUCP's
policies governing, among other things, structural incursions into the protected area at the east
end of the LAX North Airfield, denominated the Runway Protection Zone or RPZ, inclusion of
large "assemblies of persons," in the RPZ in patent violation of ALUCP policies and the Federal
law that governs them, Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21240 ["This state recognizes the authority of the
federal government to regulate the operation of aircraft and to control the use of the airways, and
nothing in this act shall be construed to give the department (Caltrans) the power to so regulate
and control safety factors in the operation of aircraft or to control use of the airways"}, and
LAWNs failure to mitigate these patent violations of state law and the ALUCP itself.
BN 14018685v2
Los Angeles Orange County • San Francisco • Scottsdale BuchalterNemer
David W. Louie, Chair
May 20, 2013
Page 2
L PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1991, the ALUCP for LAX was adopted.' In 2004, Los Angeles proposed a new
Airport Master Plan for LAX accompanied by a joint State Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21000, et
seq., ("CEQA") and Federal Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., ("NEPA"). During the same period, the
ALUC reviewed the LAX Airport Master Plan for consistency with the ALUCP, and found the
Airport Master Plan inconsistent with the ALUC policies governing safety impacts of increased
airport capacity and regionalization of aviation demand. Also in 2004, the Los Angeles City
Council overruled the ALUC determination of inconsistency by a two-thirds vote, pursuant to
Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21676.5.
In 2005, the County of Los Angeles and the City of El Segundo filed an Impasse Appeal
concerning certain aspects of the LAX Airport Master Plan. Disagreement was in the areas of
measuring airport capacity, the need to develop a regional approach to airports, noise, safety and
security. The ALUC heard the impasse at an appeal hearing and upheld the appeal in the areas
of measuring airport capacity and the need to develop a regional approach to airports, and denied
the appeal in the areas of noise safety and security.
Also in 2005, the County community group, Alliance for a Regional Airport Solution to
Airport Congestion ("ARSAC") and the Cities of El Segundo, Inglewood, and Culver City
("Petitioners") filed a legal challenge under CEQA to the Los Angeles City Council's adoption
of the joint EIR/EIS for the LAX Airport Master Plan. Later that year, the parties settled the
legal challenge through a Stipulated Settlement which required, among other things, that: (1)
Petitioners withdraw the Impasse Appeal; (2) future LAX projects, identified in the Master Plan
as "Yellow Light" projects, be evaluated through a subsequent study, the Specific Plan
Amendment Study ("SPAS"); and (3) full CEQA review be undertaken at the conclusion of the
SPAS. In 2006, LAWA commenced the process of developing alternatives for inclusion in the
SPAS. The final SPAS EIR and accompanying "SPAS Report" included nine alternatives that
could be mixed and matched to achieve the final project. No preferred alternative was
designated.
On February 5, 2013; the LAX Board of Airport Commissioners ("BOAC") certified the
SPAS EIR and selected Alternative 1, which was predicated upon airfield improvements,
including the movement of the northernmost runway, Runway 61124R, 260 feet to the north,
with an associated movement of the RPZ, with resulting inclusion of several populated structures
(collectively, the "Airfield Improvements"). The SPAS Project also included a number of
administrative amendments to portions of the City of Los Angeles General Plan including: (1)
the LAX Specific Plan; (2) the Land Use Element, including the LAX Plan and the
Westchester/Playa de Rey Community Plan; (3) the Transportation Element; and (4) the Noise
Element. Those subsidiary plan documents ("Plan Amendments") were offered merely for the
The document was titled, at that time Los Angeles County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
IN
BN 14018685v2 1401S685v2
BuchalterNemer
David W. Louie, Chair
May 20, 2013
Page 3
purpose of memorializing the Airfield Improvements which are the gravamen of the SPAS
Project.
II. CITIES/COUNTY HAVE STANDING TO PROSECUTE AN IMPASSE APPEAL
As Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21670.2(a) applies only to the County of Los Angeles, the
ALUC has promulgated the "Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission Review
Procedures (December 2004)" ("Review Procedures") which govern appeals to the ALUC.
Review Procedures, § 5. Review Procedures § 5.2.1 set forth the basic requirements for standing
to appeal.
First, an appeal may be brought by "talny public agency involved in an impasse over the
airport planning of another public agency, where the airport or the airport's planning area
boundary extends into the County of Los Angeles." A "public agency" is defined as "[a] county,
city, school district, or other governmental body." Review procedures, § 1.2.22: Second, the
matter appealed must pertain to "[a]ny significant unresolved issue between the appellant public
agency and the public agency proposing the project regarding proper airport planning as it relates
to the project at issue." Review Procedures, § 1.2.16. Third, the "public agency" must
"demonstrate that it has, at a minimum, participated in the airport planning process and has
expressed its concerns to the public agency governing body regarding the airport planning
project." Review Procedures, § 5.2.1. Cities/County have met all three prongs of the test.
First, there can be no disagreement that,Cities/County meet the review procedures'
definition of "public agency;" that the matters appealed relate to the still unresolved issues of
project definition and ALUC safety and regionalization policies created by the SPAS Project.
Nor can it be disputed that Cities/County have fully participated in, and communicated their
positions concerning, the SPAS Project, to various agencies, commissions and representatives of
the City of Los Angeles. See, e.g., Comments of the Cities of Inglewood, Culver City, Ontario
and County of San Bernardino on Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 10, 2012
(attached to this Impasse Appeal as Exhibit A), and Comments of Cities of Inglewood, Culver
City, Ontario and County of San Bernardino on the Final Environmental Impact Report, March
8, 2013 (attached to this Impasse Appeal as Exhibit B). In addition, representatives of
Cities/County appeared at the meeting of the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissions on
February 5,2013; the Los Angeles Planning Commission on February 14,2013; the ALUC on
March 27,2013; and the Joint Meeting of the Los Angeles City Council Planning and Land Use
Management Committee and Trade, Commerce and Tourism Committee on April 9, 2013. It is
equally indisputable that the matters appealed relate to the SPAS Project which involves LAX,
the planning boundaries of which lie comfortably within the County of Los Angeles.
TH. THE IMPASSE
In Public Utilities Code section 21670, the California Legislature declared the purpose of
the California Aeronautics Act. "It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly
development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as BuchalterNerner
David W. Louie, Glair
May 20, 2013
Page 4
to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted
pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems." Id. at
§ 21670(a)(1). In addition, "Wt is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." Id. at §
21670(a)(2).
To ensure that these purposes are achieved, the Public Utilities Code requires that each
county with an airport serviced by a scheduled airline establish an airport land use commission.
Cal. Pub Util. Code § 21670(b). Each commission is responsible for formulating, "an airport
land use compatibility plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the
area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the
general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general."
Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21675(a). In addition, airport land use commissions must, among other
things, review the plans of local agencies to determine whether those plans are consistent with
the county's ALUCP. Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21674(d).
Here, pursuant to LAWA's limited application for review, the ALUC reviewed not the
entire SPAS Project, the genesis of the impacts on the "general health and welfare" that the
ALUC is charged with protecting, but only a number of Plan Amendments memorializing
planned changes to the airfield, amendments which would have been entirely unnecessary absent
the underlying comprehensive plan for the airfield. Cities/County disagree with the narrow
scope of the ALUC's review of the project; its determination of consistency for just the
supporting ancillary plans, made at LAWNs behest; its decision to ignore the SPAS Project's
manifest violations of the ALUCP; and ultimately with a finding that the Project is consistent
with the requirements of the ALUCP. Cities/County have therefore reached an impasse with
LAWA regarding the SPAS Project.
A. LAWA and the ALUC Impermissibly Segmented the SPAS Project in Order to
Create Consistency with the ALUCP
The SPAS Project is a comprehensive land use project providing the blueprint for the
Airfield Improvements. The PER defines the
"key features of the LAWA Staff-Recommended Alternative [to]
include:
+ Relocation of Runway 6L/24R 260 feet north
• Construction of a centerline taxiway
• Easterly extension of Runway 612/24L
• improvements to north airfield taxiways
• Development/redevelopment/extension of Terminal 0, Terminal
3, Tom Bradley International Terminal, and the future Midfield
Satellite Concourse
BN 14018685v2 BuchalterNemer
David W. Louie, Chair
May 20, 2013
Page 5
e 153 passenger gates
• Development of an Intermodal Transportation Facility (1TF),
Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility (CONRAC), and parking
outside the Central Terminal Area (CTA)
• Construction of an Automated People Mover (APM) to link new
facilities to the CTA and provide connectivity with planned
Metro facilities."
FEIR, § 2.1.1, p. 2-1.
In an apparent effort to minimize the magnitude of the SPAS Project's potential impacts
on "the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport," Cal. Pub. Util. Code
§ 21675, and, thus make a finding of consistency possible, LAWA submitted only the Plan
Amendments to the ALUC for a determination of consistency, rather than the SPAS Project as a
whole. Thus, in making its determination of consistency, the ALUC admittedly and purposefully
ignored the Airfield Improvements that are the heart of the SPAS Project, see, e.g., FE1R, §
2,1.2, p. 2-2, and the only reason the Plan Amendments were required in the first instance.
Because the Airfield Improvements are an identity with the SPAS Project, and, because the Plan
Amendments merely document the existence of the Airfield Improvements, the consistency of
the SPAS Project with the ALUCP cannot be adequately evaluated without also evaluating the
characteristics and impacts of the Airfield Improvements themselves.
In this regard, Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21676(c) provides that a public agency owning an
airport "shall, prior to modification of its airport master plan, refer any proposed change to the
airport land use commission." Here, the SPAS Project is a comprehensive change to the Airport
Master Plan that cannot be considered except as a whole. Similarly, Section 5.3.1 of the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook addresses "the obligations of local agencies
with regard to submitting land use projects . . . for the commission's review." Here, LAWA
defied the clear expectation that a single project would be submitted to the ALUC as a whole,
and not divided into segments, with each segment submitted separately at a different time, in an
effort to minimize the potential environmental impacts of each submission.
B. The ALUC Impermissibly Failed to Consider the Inconsistency between the
SPAS Project as a Whole and the ALUCP' s Policies Governing Structural and
Population Incursions into the RPZ.
The Plan Amendments evaluated by the ALUC are derived entirely from the Airfield
Improvements which include the relocation of Runway 61/24R 260 feet northward. See, e.g.,
DEIR, § 2.2, p. 2-1. The relocation of Runway 6L/24R "shift[s] the associated RPZ northward
by that same amount, which would extend over existing developed uses near the east end of the
ninway that are rint enrrentiy within the exiqting P P71." Final FIlt, §1.13.9.1, p. 9-1 1 1 While
the FEIR acknowledges that "Whe presence of such uses .maybe considered incompatible
with FAA design recommendations that RPZ areas be clear of all obstructions and occupied
uses," FOR, § 2.3.7.2.1, p. 2-117, it nevertheless claims, without a scintilla of documentary
BIsI14018685v2 BuchalterNemer
David W. Louie, Chair
May 20,2013
Page 6
support, that the runway realignment "is not considered to pose a significant safety hazard
compared to baseline conditions." Id.
In ignoring the FEIR's acknowledgment of the Project's safety impacts, LAWA and the
ALUC apparently forget both State and Federal law governing uses in the vicinity of airports, as
well as the provisions of the ALUCP. FAA's Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A specifically sets
forth rules governing permitted uses within RPZs. "It is desirable to clear the entire RPZ of all
above-ground objects. Where this is impracticable, airport owners, as a minimum, should
maintain the RPZ clear of all facilities supporting incompatible activities." Advisory Circular
150/5300-13A, § 310.a.(2), p. 70. Incompatible activities include, but are not limited to, those
which lead to an assembly of people. Advisory Circular 15015300-13A, § 310.a.(2), p. 70, citing
FAA Memorandum, Interim Guidance of Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone,
9/27/2012.
Incorporating this standard into state law, the Public Utilities Code, which governs and
structures all airport land use plans within the state, including that of Los Angeles County,
explicitly recognizes the preemptive authority of Federal law in the area of aviation safety. "This
state recognizes the authority of the federal government to regulate the operation of aircraft and
to control the use of the airways, and nothing in this act shall be construed to give the department
the power to so regulate and control safety factors in the operation of aircraft or to control use of
the airways." Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21240. As the RPZ is "primarily for the purpose of safety
and convenience to people on the ground," Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, § 310.a(1), p. 70,
its appropriate uses are designated entirely by Federal law and regulation. Last, but certainly not
least, the ALUCP is clear concerning the prohibition of any occupancy of the RPZ. ["[The RPZI
is the most critical safety area under the approach path and should be kept free of all
obstructions. No structure will be permitted nor the congregation of people allowed within this
zone." ALUCP, § III, Safety, p.
Despite these clear legal mandates, LAWA's implementation of the Airfield
Improvements will add to the RPZ at least 40 land uses, FOR, Table SRA-2.3.7.2-2, more than
one-half of which implicate "assemblies of persons." Id. Moreover, the new approach surface
for Runway 24R mandated in FAA's regulation, 14 C.F.R. Part 77, and incorporated into the
ALUCP by reference, now includes "the upper portion [of an] existing 5- story office building
located at the northwest corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Westchester Parkway," FEIR, §
2.3.7.2.1, p. 2-110, which was not formerly included in the RPZ. As the ALUC is obligated to
follow the mandates of Federal law, and that law, as well as the ALUCP, require the
maintenance of a clear RPZ to the extent legally allowable, LAWA's request for a determination
of consistency on only derivative aspects of the full project, as well as the ALUC's sanctioning
of addition incursions into the RPZ are clearly inconsistent with the policies of the ALUCP and
the Federal mandate upon which they are based.
Finally, and despite the clear violations of both Federal law and its own ALUCP, by
finding consistency with only the plan amendments, and failing and refusing to consider the
Airfield Improvements that give rise to them and are their raison d'etre, the ALUC
BN 14018685v2 BuchatterNemer
David W. Louie, Chair
May 20, 2013
Page 7
impermissibly sanctions LAWA's failure to provide mitigation of these clearly substantial safety
violations. "The need, if any, for acquisition or other appropriate measures associated with
changes in the RPZs will be determined by the FAA in later stages of planning and therefore are
not addressed in this ElR." FEIR, § 2.3.9.1, p. 2-140. This nonspecific mention of potential
mitigation, as well as its rejection, is not only inconsistent with the ALUCP's policies, but flies
in the face of both Federal and State law, and requires the appropriate exercise of the ALUC's
discretion to find the SPAS Project inconsistent with the ALUCP.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Cities/County respectfully requests that the ALUC set a
hearing and grant this Impasse Appeal, finding the SPAS Project inconsistent with the governing
ALUCP.
Sincerely,
BUCHALTER NEMER
A Professional Corporation
By
&/ 71
1kM,6
Barbara Lichman
BN 14018685v2 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
INITIATION OF IMPASSE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS WITH
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION RELATING TO THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES' AND LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS'
APPROVAL OF THE LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
PROJECT AND CERTIFICATION OF RELATED FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2013, after a lengthy process during which the
City of Culver City ("City") submitted extensive public comments in opposition, the Los
Angeles ("LA") City Council approved the Specific Plan Amendment Study project
("SPAS Project") related to the proposed expansion at Los Angeles International Airport
("LAX") and certified the related Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"); and
WHEREAS, the approval of the SPAS Project by the LA City Council was
preceded by the LA City Planning Commission's recommendation of approval and the
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission's ("ALUC") finding that the SPAS
Project is consistent with the LA County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP");
and
WHEREAS, the City's comments and testimony during this process
concluded that the FEIR is inadequate because, among other things, the SPAS Project
is not consistent with the ALUCP; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to challenge ALUC's determination that the
SPAS Project is consistent with the ALUCP by the filing of an Impasse Appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of r-nIvRr city, nnFs
HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
1. The City Council authorizes the initiation of Impasse Appeal
proceedings with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission relating to the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 I City of Los Angeles' and Los Angeles World Airports' approval of the Los Angeles
2 International Airport Specific Plan Amendment Study project and certification of the
3 related Final Environmental Impact Report.
4
2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney, or designee,
5 in consultation with the City Manager, to execute and submit all documents including,
6 but not limited to applications, memorandums and legal briefs, which may be necessary
7 for the Impasse Appeal process.
8
3. The City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to
9 the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission.
10
11
APPROVED and ADOPTED this
12
13
JEFFREY COOPER, MAYOR
14
City of Culver City, California
15
16 ATTEST:
17
18 MARTIN R. COLE City Clerk
19
Al 3-00276
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
day of May, 2013.
28