Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, in attendance at the Community Council meeting last Thursday, gave a brief overview of her compromise master plan for rebuilding LAX, which was presented to L.A. City Council Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. The result of the vote was not known as we went to press. The Alternative D Master Plan expansion, which has been separated into two phases by Miscikowski, was passed in June by the Boards of Airport and Planning despite opposition by communities surrounding the airport. Projected cost of the project: $11 billion. Expected completion date: 2015. ‘We don’t want to jettison everything, just get something done right now,’ said the councilwoman. Asked where the financing for the proposed improvements would come from, she said 100 percent ‘must come from the airport itself’airlines, concessions, and so on. There is no ability to use city funds whatsoever.’ Alternative D calls for the work to be done in two phases. The first, or ‘green light’ phase involves reconfiguring the south runway to make it safer, controlling auto access (including car rentals and taxis services) by building a people-mover transit hub, and adding more gates. Cost: $3 billion. The ‘yellow light’ phase includes two new terminals as well as one of the most controversial aspects of the plan, the relocation of passenger check-in services off site to Manchester Square in Westchester. Opposed to Plan D is Denny Schneider, vice president of ARSEC (Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion). He referred to a September 2004 Rand Corporation report which indicated that the proposed improvements would not make the airport, which is considered a prime terrorist target, ‘any safer.’ Schneider said that while the overall plan for LAX is acceptable, ‘the problem is the implementation.’ His biggest concern is that work will go ahead ‘without proper studies being completed. ‘It’s sort of like building a house, then checking to make sure you have enough foundation. Before September 11, 68,000 people a year used the airport. There is concern (Continued on Page 4) that it will go as high as 80,000 to 90,000. What is the impact of that on traffic and the neighboring communities? There are now in excess of 33,000 pages of documentation on this project, if anyone is looking for bedside reading.’ POTRERO CANYON Miscikowski, who has endorsed a plan to sell the 22 city-owned lots on the canyon rim and redeposit the proceeds in a fund specifically earmarked for finishing the Potrero Canyon project, gave an update on the motion and how the community will be involved. An estimated $1.2 million is needed to compete Phase II, which includes repairing two recent landslides and grade the remaining stockpiled soil. The final phase, Phase III of the estimated $30-million project, includes establishing a 7-acre riparian habitat at an estimated cost of between $7 and $12 million. Miscikowski’s motion has received support from the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee and was approved by the Budget and Finance Committee on Tuesday. It is expected to be presented to the full City Council on Oct. 27 or Nov. 3. Still to come is approval from the California Coastal Commission. When the Coastal Commission originally approved the project in 1986, it placed restrictions on the sale of the city-owned lots straddling Potrero until the riparian habitat and park construction requirements were completed and funding for inspections and maintenance had been identified. However, Commission staff has indicated it would be willing to waive these restrictions if the city designates the separate account into which all lot proceeds would be deposited, the funds to be used only to complete Phases II and III. The buildable lots are located on Friends, DePauw and Earlham, as well as two lots on Alma Real which Miscikowski said will be the first lots to be sold. She also indicated, after discussion with council members, that any development of those two lots, ‘which are fairly isolated on the rim,’ would be subject to the existing CC&R’s of the Huntington. Council member Carl Mellinger had concerns about how the properties will be sold (‘through auction’) and if the number of sales per person would be limited (‘We’re looking into that’). Questions were then asked about the community’s involvement in the project. While a 15-member Potrero Canyon Community Advisory Committee will be appointed to work with the city, ‘only five will be from the community,’ noted council member Stuart Muller, who was also concerned about the ‘scope’ of this committee. He also wanted to know who would be responsible for maintenance once the park is complete. While the Council unanimously voted to support Miscikowski’s motion to sell the Potrero lots, it did so with two conditions: that the configuration of the advisory committee be revised to include more community representation, and that there be a clearer definition of the advisory committee’s duties and responsibilities. RENAISSANCE ACADEMY Kurt Toppel gave a brief report on the status of the subcommittee formed regarding Renaissance Academy. ‘We have met three times so far,’ said the council vice-chairman. ‘We have no specific recommendations yet. We will be meeting again next week.’ Michael McRoskey, who is on the council’s Renaissance subcommittee representing neighboring residents, inquired about the parking variance required under the Palisades Specific Plan and the discrepancy he saw between the over 300 students such a variance would presumably allow and the fact that as far as he knows his committee is only ‘working towards 90 students being permitted in the Alma Real building.’ McRoskey also said Renaissance is currently looking into ‘alternate locations.’ Miscikowski replied that as far as she knew the school had not yet officially applied for the parking variance and ‘whether it even qualifies for the variance is a delicate question right now.’ Saying she was aware of how ‘volatile’ the situation with Renaissance is in the Palisades, ‘we really have to look at the long-term implications.’ The councilwoman made it clear that her main concern was and still is ‘the life safety issue, which seems to have been resolved with the fire department,’ referring to the fire marshal’s approval two weeks ago to allow up to 215 students to occupy the space on the two floors the school has leased in the commercial/business building. ‘If that hadn’t been approved we would have shut the school down.’ Noting that there are now issues with ‘Building and Safety’ as well as between ‘the tenant and landlord,’ Miscikowski said that there was going to have ‘to be more accountability’ given recent events. DWP In a brief discussion on the Department of Water and Power’s efforts to reposition power lines under PCH, as has already been done for half a mile at the Topanga Canyon intersection, Miscikowski pointed out that while ‘the Coast Highway is not a city street,’ she thought the city might be able to help. DWP, which has no beautification budget, has already said a deal has to be made with the city and that there needs to be an assessment district established. The cost of moving the aging electrical lines underground is 10 times the cost of fixing the existing lines above ground.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
