Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the West Harbor Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee denies appeal of West Harbor modification, certifies environmental findings
Summary
A City committee voted to deny an appeal of the West Harbor project modification, certifying the final environmental review and adoption of a mitigation monitoring program after public testimony largely supporting the project and contested mitigation promises from union representatives.
At a meeting of the City Council Committee on Transportation and Tourism, members voted to deny an appeal of the West Harbor modification and certified the project’s final environmental review, adopting the findings and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The committee called the roll and recorded affirmative votes that approved the recommendations from the Port Commission.
The decision clears a procedural hurdle to the West Harbor modification and the proposed amphitheater and attractions in San Pedro. Port staff and the project developer urged the committee to deny the appeal, saying the environmental analysis and proposed mitigation measures meet applicable standards and that the project will bring private investment and jobs to the neighborhood.
The matter drew extensive public comment. Dozens of speakers — including business leaders, chamber representatives, entertainment-industry operators and multiple union-affiliated speakers — urged the committee to deny the appeal so construction and tenant selection could proceed. Elise Swanson, identified in testimony as president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of San Pedro, told the committee the modification is “transformative for the port area and for Los Angeles” and recommended denial of the appeal. Several trade-union speakers expressed support for the project on the basis that it would create union jobs and local economic activity; entertainment-industry representatives said the amphitheater would provide year-round programming and workforce opportunities.
Representatives of United Local 11, which filed the appeal, told the committee the project’s proposed mitigation measures do not go far enough and cited specific provisions they said require stronger, enforceable commitments. In particular, Local 11’s representative argued that measures identified in the environmental documents (referred to in testimony by shorthand such as AQ-31, TR-1 and GH-1) lack required contingencies if—for example—zero-emission buses or identified transit options are not available, and that the transportation demand management and mitigation programs should contain alternative measures and stronger enforcement language.
Port staff responded with a detailed explanation of the environmental review and mitigation strategy. Port staff summarized comparative venue analyses (including the Greek Theatre and the Grove) used to model vehicle trips and emissions, explained parking and circulation plans, and described the port’s mitigation monitoring and enforcement approach. The port asserted that the environmental review used conservative assumptions and that the proposed mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program satisfy applicable law and will be enforceable through port permitting and contract terms.
The project developer described private and public investments tied to the modification: testimony by the developer’s representative described roughly $200 million in private capital to date, about $80 million in infrastructure improvements, and additional tenant investment estimates reported to the committee during the presentation. Developer witnesses said the amphitheater would host community events as well as commercial performances and argued that the project would create construction and permanent jobs and generate new business for local vendors.
After committee members asked questions about local hiring, community benefits and mitigation enforcement, a motion to deny the appeal and adopt the Port Commission recommendations was made and adopted. The committee directed certification of the final environmental document, adoption of the stated findings and adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, consistent with the Port Commission’s action.
The committee recorded affirmative votes from the members noted in the meeting record and closed the item. Additional follow-up for the project will proceed through the Port Commission’s established permitting and monitoring processes.
