Council upholds DOT findings in Howard Hughes Center appeal; item approved 9-1

The Los Angeles City Council on June 2 voted to approve item 13, effectively upholding the Department of Transportation—s findings in a dispute over the Howard Hughes Center development agreement and associated coastal transportation fees.

The matter reached the council as an appeal by homeowners and community groups who argued a change in the project—s planned use—from office to an evening-heavy mix of theater, restaurants and retail—would shift traffic impacts and require additional mitigation. Craig Sherman, representing the appellants, told the council the mayor—s office had unilaterally amended a development agreement and that the city must enforce the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan and the 1986 development agreement.

"This appeal—s about West Side traffic — your San Diego Freeway nightmare," Sherman said. "The coastal fees are mandatory set forth in the plan. The council negotiated a development agreement in 1985, and that needs to be enforced and cannot be changed by the mayor's office without consideration of council."

Developer representatives and Department of Transportation supporters urged the council to deny the appeal. Marsh Holtzman of JH Snyder Company asked the council to uphold DOT staff and the Transportation Committee recommendations. Dale Neil, counsel for the developers, told the council the appeal was untimely and lacked merit and urged denial.

After brief discussion the council took a roll-call vote: 9 ayes, 1 no. The clerk announced, "That item is approved. Forthwith." The record does not show named votes in the transcript; the clerk reported the tally only.

Why it matters: Appellants said the revision converts a daytime office use into a higher-intensity, evening-oriented retail/entertainment project and that such a shift changes when and how traffic congestion appears and must be mitigated. The Department of Transportation had identified roughly $5 million in required traffic mitigation tied to that change, according to speakers urging enforcement.

Supporting details: Speakers cited the 1986 Howard Hughes Center development agreement, the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan and a Transportation Department letter dated April 17, 1998, as central documents. Appellants argued the developer should not be allowed to apply credits from a prior, different project to avoid paying mitigation fees for the new project configuration.

Council action: The council approved the item as presented; the transcript records the approval and the 9-1 tally but does not record textual language of a motion on the floor in the excerpt. The council did not adopt new mitigations on the floor during the hearing; the vote was to adopt the recommendation before the body.

Public comment/positions: Appellants said the settlement of credits would "give away $5,000,000 that belongs to the public." Developer counsel argued the appeal was late and the DOT action complied with the specific plan and the development agreement.

Next steps/implications: The transcript records approval of item 13; any specific mitigation obligations or follow-up steps will be reflected in subsequent department records or permit conditions.