City Council Approves United Cargo Facility

Over the objections of some powerful unions and neighboring communities, a divided Los Angeles City Council approved a lease Friday for a $30-million United Airlines cargo facility at Los Angeles International Airport.

Right up to the moment the vote was cast, insiders were calling the vote too close to call. The council voted 8-4 in favor of the lease; on the 15-member council, eight votes was the minimum needed to win, so that vote was a squeaker.

, The lawmakers’ action puts to rest weeks of infighting in the city’s influential labor movement, and it touched off yet another round of recriminations from LAX expansion foes. Those critics complained that the airline, the No. 1 passenger carrier at the airport, is improperly attempting to enlarge its cargo capacity without a full environmental review.

But a majority of the council was convinced that United had more than adequately reviewed the effects of the new facility on surrounding areas, traffic and air pollution, among other things.

“A bare majority of the council voted to ignore the legitimate concerns of airport neighbors and over 70 Southern California communities who have asked that air commerce be distributed across the region instead of concentrated in a single place,” said Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, a dogged expansion opponent who represents the area near the airport and heads the committee overseeing airport issues. She had hoped to encourage her colleagues to send the matter back to the Airport Commission to order a more comprehensive environmental study.

Approval for the lease “was an insult to the communities surrounding LAX,” she said.

While Galanter and even the others who voted against the lease said they separated the labor issues from the cargo facility, other lawmakers said they also removed airport expansion arguments from this debate, as well. Council President John Ferraro, who previously had supported sending the issue back to the Airport Commission, said he was convinced to support the building after hearing more about United’s plans to reduce the effects of traffic and air pollution.

United officials say they have conducted exhaustive studies of those impacts and others at the proposed building on the corner of Airport and Century boulevards. They say they will spend $5 million to reduce those effects.

The airline, second only to Federal Express in cargo handling at LAX, says its current facility is inefficient and outdated and that cargo is left on the tarmac under a tent, causing theft and damage.

The airline argues that it could expand its cargo handling to double or triple the 850,000 pounds it currently handles in the new facility without adding a single new flight.

United’s critics “seem to think the skies are going to be filled with cargo planes,” said Dale Goldsmith, an environmental attorney who is working for United. “United isn’t Federal Express.”

It does, however, handle 38% of the mail delivered in the city, among other things. Much of that cargo travels in the belly of passenger planes.

Proponents of the new building said they were relieved and pleased by Friday’s vote and added that the cargo workers will have a safe, state-of-the-art building in about a year.

But the replacement facility has caused a deep rift in organized labor: The airline’s cargo workers supported it, while another key union opposed it. The county Federation of Labor even convened a task force to hear the differing views, then decided to remain neutral on the issue.

Particularly on the spot was Miguel Contreras, the AFL-CIO executive secretary-treasurer and also a member of the airport commission. Contreras was not present when that panel unanimously approved the cargo lease.

All sides brought busloads of supporters to City Hall on Friday, eager to sway undecided council members. The machinists and aerospace workers’ union held a morning rally to support United; that union was backed by several others, including the building trades and carpenters’ unions.

The Service Employees International Union, Local 1877, strongly opposed the lease on the grounds that the airline should be required to conduct a more comprehensive environmental study. The union has been trying to pressure United to require its subcontractor to recognize security workers, baggage handlers and others into the local.

Mike Garcia, president of Local 1877, said the philosophy and strength of his union is to support the community where many airport workers live. Inglewood already has sued the city over the proposed cargo facility and El Segundo recently filed a lawsuit claiming the city is expanding the airport in an illegal, piecemeal manner.

“We live in these communities,” Garcia said. “We are the community. . . . Sometimes you have to choose between your allies.”

The union split was troubling to many, especially in City Hall where lawmakers typically are sympathetic to union concerns.

“We are disappointed,” said Mary Anne Hohenstein, organizing director for Local 1877. “It was a really tough vote for everybody.”