Councilwoman Janice Hahn Awaits L.A. Harbor's Waterfront Plans

TPR's sister publication, MIR, last featured an interview with you in July 2006. During that interview you voiced frustration that waterfront development plans had stalled under what was then a new mayor and a new Harbor Commission. Just last month the Long Beach Press Telegram reported that six potential designs had been released and that a draft EIR was forthcoming. What is the status of the "Bridge to Breakwater" development plan?

I am still frustrated that it has taken this long. I really had hoped we could deliver a world-class waterfront to not only the people of San Pedro and Wilmington, but to all of Los Angeles by now. It has been a very slow process. The good news is that a draft EIR was released late in September, and we hope to have that certified by next March. We hope to have a new Ports O' Call soon, maybe by 2012, and we hope to have a promenade going along the water from the Vincent Thomas Bridge to the breakwater. It is moving along.

Planning for the waterfront calls for development of multiple museums and, of course, the cruise terminal, which will cost about $1 billion when approved. It is a difficult market right now for new development. Are these waterfront plans still realizable? Does the plan still have your support?

I do still support them. Even in tough times, there is still a draw for a waterfront property and waterfront attractions. It will be good for all of Los Angeles because it will attract tourists. We know that tourism is the second largest industry in Los Angeles. When we see a four percent increase in tourism, it equates to about $12 million in our general fund. People are still taking cruises, and people still enjoy walking and dining along the water. To stop now because of tough economic times would be a mistake. We need to keep moving forward with this. It's a good plan, it benefits all of California, and it's the right thing to do.

Your council office recently announced that the Westway Terminal Company, which has been a long-time impediment to waterfront development, has vacated its terminal. How does their leaving play into plans for development along the waterfront?

It was under Mayor Hahn that the term "Bridge to Breakwater" was coined. The thought was that it would get rid of heavy, industrial use from the Vincent Thomas Bridge all the way up to the federal breakwater and turn it into recreational and commercial retail property. One of the impediments to that was, of course, the heavy, industrial use of the Westway Terminal.

We also always felt that there was a bit of a security issue, because of the materials that it housed. After 9/11 everyone was a little nervous about the port being a target. The Westway Terminal is closer to hotels, neighborhoods, and restaurants than we would have liked it to be. So, Westway vacating the property opens up the process; it opens up prime waterfront land. We think that will fit in very nicely with out long-term goals.

Let's turn to a discussion of the ports themselves. Recently, the Port of Los Angeles approved a $102 million expansion of the TraPac Terminal. How important is this planned expansion to the long term viability of the port?

It's very important. The port last released an EIR for an expansion about seven years ago. We do know that the port is still the region's economic engine-it's our "golden goose." It benefits the national economy and accounts for half a million regional jobs. Any kind of expansion is key to nurturing that growth. When the TraPac Terminal is completely expanded it will equal the throughput of the entire Oakland port. That's one terminal. The project itself will provide 2,800 contraction jobs, 300 longshore jobs, and about 5,400 annual jobs in our five-county region. This is good for all of Los Angeles.

At the end of September, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 974, a port container fee bill authored by State Senator Allan Lowenthal. Share both what adoption of that bill would have permitted and what any future clean air initiatives must do to acquire adequate funding.

It was a very big disappointment that the Governor vetoed that bill. We really felt that this bill was finally tailor-made for him to sign. It was one of those bills that got sacrificed on the altar of the late budget, and I think the Governor was a bit punitive in what he did and didn't sign. It was a huge loss. It would have brought in millions of dollars for clean air and infrastructure. We know that every container that comes into the ports represents commerce but also represents some sort of risk, both to air quality and traffic congestion. We always talk about cargo being diverted to other ports, for whatever reason, but we have always heard that the number one reason that cargo would be diverted from the port would be because of land-side congestion. These shipping companies, these retailers, they want their stuff to come in and get out to its ultimate destination. The Lowenthal bill would have provided money for infrastructure. Our infrastructure is aging! Our bridges and freeways are aging. I don't think we will be able to handle the growth that is to come until we make some major investments in our infrastructure.

Having the bill vetoed made it clear that we cannot rely on the state or federal government; to really understand the importance of providing dollars to our port complex, we need to make changes locally. That's why I appreciate that both ports took it into their own hands with the Clean Air Action Plan and the Clean Trucks Program. It is up to us to improve our air and our infrastructure.

Let's now address the Clean Air Action Plan adopted by the ports of Long Beach and L.A. One of its many elements is a Clean Trucks Plan, which both ports implemented October 1. Many in the goods movement industry suggested that the differences between the L.A. and Long Beach Clean Truck Plans would cause implementation problems. Can you comment on the roll out of the trucking plans, the differences between the two, and how both are working?

Despite what the naysayers warned, the sky has not fallen. Everything that I've heard shows the program is working very well. It seems to be a very smooth implementation. We've banned all pre-1989 trucks from coming into our ports. That was a huge step in helping to clean the air. By 2012 old trucks will no longer be permitted to service the port. What I like about the program as well is that it's not just the air in San Pedro that we're cleaning up. Everywhere those trucks go-the 60, the 5, the 10, the 15-we're cleaning up the air in those communities too. The places those trucks were idling the most were, certainly, along the 710 Freeway, and as they were queuing up to come into Wilmington. We're going to see a dramatic decrease in emissions as a result of the Clean Truck Program.

On the Los Angeles side we felt that creating a stable workforce was also a part of maintaining the goals of the Clean Truck Program. The independent truckers had a very difficult time in keeping their trucks maintained. We know that part of the Clean Truck Program is to keep trucks up to date, maintained, and serviced. Independent truckers get paid by the load. Sometimes, because of traffic, the truckers may only drop off one load a day. On the Los Angeles side, they will now get paid by the hour so that even when they are sitting in traffic they will get paid. That's the way it should be. It will create a more reliable and stable workforce; we are opening up good paying jobs in an industry that hasn't really yet attracted the next workforce. Now we can train young people all over the city. Maybe we could have a really good truck-training program in South Central L.A. These will be good paying jobs. Truck drivers are still the backbone of the goods movement industry.

Let's conclude with a question we've repeatedly asked you since 2001. You stated in our 2001 interview that the city of Los Angeles' approach to transportation, housing, and infrastructure is reflective rather than proactive. Has the city of Los Angeles made much progress in the last seven years?

I really am encouraged. Things have improved under Gail Goldberg. When we first took a trip to San Diego and looked at some of her planned communities, which included libraries, police stations, elementary schools, and affordable housing, we were very impressed with how she looked at things. She had a vision of planning. She has brought that to Los Angeles.

The Planning Department has finally decided that they need to work with the Department of Transportation on development. That's the thing we were being criticized the most for-allowing development while not really taking into account the traffic impact that would come as a result. The two departments working together makes a lot of sense.

The other thing I like that we're doing is working on streamlining our department. There are 12 departments that work on permits when someone wants to develop something. We're streamlining that into two departments: Planning and Building and Safety. It's called the 12-to-2 Program. Under that plan, when people go through the process they won't have to go to 12 different departments. We often find that those 12 departments are not talking to each other, and sometimes they make contradictory recommendations or approvals, and it has caused our planning process to be both very convoluted and frustrating. The 12-to-2 Program makes a lot of sense.

The other thing that I think we're doing a better job of is working with the neighborhood councils to get them more involved in planning. They have taken it upon themselves to provide "Planning 101" to neighborhood councils, which is good because we've got a lot of interested people in neighborhoods that are now becoming much more educated on what the planning process is all about and what they can and can not have jurisdiction over. That's been really helpful, and it ends with better-planned communities.

Gail is also trying to update all of the community and general plans, and that is key to moving forward and actually allowing the Planning Department to plan.