The Los Angeles City Council on Sept. 10 voted to deny an appeal and approved the supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) for the West Harbor waterfront project in San Pedro, clearing the way for a 6,200‑seat amphitheater and related waterfront improvements. Councilmember Tim McOsker introduced an amending motion and asked colleagues to vote yes to deny the appeal; the roll call recorded 15 ayes.

The decision affirms a unanimous June 26 approval of the SEIR by the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners and follows an extended public process and a multi‑year project development phase. Councilmember McOsker said the port’s environmental review was “impeccable” and characterized the appeal as baseless. He called the appeal “CEQA abuse” and urged the council to protect the community’s long‑running planning effort.

Project backers told the council the amphitheater would be a major economic and cultural asset. Eric Johnson, senior project executive for the West Harbor Project, asked the council to “strongly” uphold the Harbor Commission’s certification and said the development included mitigation measures identified in the SEIR. Elise Swanson, president and CEO of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce, cited the chamber’s support and the project’s workforce and economic projections, saying the amphitheater would create “1,700 jobs during ongoing operations, labor income of $88,000,000 and $250,000,000 in economic output.” Rena Wasserman, senior vice president for Nederlander Concerts, described Nederlander’s operational experience and said the company would enforce mitigation measures to reduce impacts such as sound, curfew, traffic and parking.

Supporters from San Pedro’s business, labor and arts communities filled council chambers and spoke at the public hearing. Bruce Heyman of the Los Angeles Maritime Institute and multiple small‑business owners urged the council to deny the appeal and keep the project on schedule. Multiple speakers described the project as the culmination of decades of local planning and port work.

Council action adopted amendment 36‑A (McOsker/Park) and the item was adopted as amended; the council also approved handling the item urgent forthwith. During debate, McOsker and others emphasized the extent of the environmental review, saying the SEIR addressed vehicle miles traveled and other impacts the appellant had raised.

The council’s action does not eliminate the possibility of legal challenge; council members and speakers noted an appeal had been filed and discussed the risk that litigation might follow. The council’s vote, however, removes the council as a hurdle to the Harbor Commission’s certification and authorizes the project to proceed to the next administrative steps described by port staff.

For now, project proponents said the next steps include implementation of mitigation measures and operational planning with Nederlander Concerts and other partners. The council record shows broad community and labor support for the decision.

What happened next: The council adopted the item as amended (motion 36‑A McOsker/Park) and recorded 15 ayes. The Harbor Commission’s prior unanimous certification remains the basis for the SEIR; the council vote affirms that certification and rejects the pending appeal.