Los Angeles council accepts mitigation deal with West Hollywood, preserves enforcement guarantees but rejects filing-only lawsuit

The Los Angeles City Council voted to accept a stipulated mitigation agreement with West Hollywood and the Sunset Millennium developer on a package of traffic and public-safety improvements, rejecting a motion to file but not serve a lawsuit aimed at preserving the city's legal rights while staff studied the proposed mitigations.

Councilmember Feuer proposed filing a lawsuit but withholding service so the city's Department of Transportation (DOT), Fire and Police departments could fully evaluate the new mitigation proposals. "File the suit today, but don't serve it," Feuer said, describing the move as a way to "preserve our rights while at the same time allowing the analysis that DOT, police, and fire have said repeatedly yesterday they have not had the chance to do." Feuer said that if the city's experts later determined the mitigations were adequate, the city could dismiss the action.

The substitute motion to file without serving failed on a 4–10 vote. Council then approved an amended committee report that included a developer guarantee to cover overruns on a specified Automated Traffic Control System (ATCS) contribution and other agreed mitigations. The council vote on the committee report as amended was 12 ayes, 2 noes.

Why it matters: The disputed Sunset Millennium project, approved by West Hollywood, drew intense testimony from Los Angeles residents who said the development would increase traffic on narrow access streets and harm emergency response times. City departments warned they had not had sufficient time to analyze the developer's late-filed mitigation proposals; fire and police officials had submitted letters opposing the project as proposed until mitigations were shown to be adequate.

Council and staff accounts: Councilmember Feuer and allied members argued litigation had been necessary to prompt West Hollywood and the developer to the negotiating table; others, including Councilmember Galanter and members of the committee, said the negotiated mitigation represented a practical victory and warned that litigation could remove the candidate mitigations from the table. "I think this is a victory," Galanter said, noting the project produced improvements that would not otherwise have been offered. Several council members urged trusting the negotiated agreement and using established intercity mechanisms.

Public testimony and parties: Dozens of speakers addressed the council during a public hearing, including Los Angeles residents who said Alta Loma and other one-block access streets would be cut off or overburdened; West Hollywood officials including Jeffrey Prang, who said the project had been through exhaustive public debate in his city and that working together was preferable to litigation; and Cindy Starrett, the developer's counsel, who described a settlement agreement that included an ATCS contribution and emergency-vehicle signal preemption, and said the project would fund $480,000 in transportation improvements for the City of Los Angeles in addition to $7 million of broader project work.

Public safety and department review: Fire Chief Amatri and Commander Dan Koenig of the LAPD told the council they opposed the project as submitted because DOT's initial analysis showed adverse impacts and the departments had not had time to evaluate the new mitigation proposals. DOT staff and Chief Amatri told the council they could not yet say whether the mitigations were adequate. DOT staff said the package proposed by West Hollywood and the developer "benefits the city of Los Angeles, but we have no way of saying they're adequate or significant" without further analysis.

Council action and conditions: The council approved a committee recommendation as amended to require the developer and West Hollywood to guarantee funding for the mitigation measures, including the ATCS contribution; council spokespersons noted the developer explicitly agreed to cover overruns on the ATCS contribution when asked during debate. Motions to condition the agreement by removing proposed cul-de-sacs on Alta Loma (opposed by some West Hollywood project proponents) failed by 4–10.

Next steps: The agreement is signed by West Hollywood and the developer; the city attorney indicated the document had been agreed to and signed by those parties but not yet signed by the City of Los Angeles. Councilmembers said they expect DOT, Fire and Police to continue reviewing the mitigations and that enforcement or remedies for any breach of the agreement would be civil actions for breach of the stipulated agreement rather than CEQA-specific remedies.

Votes at a glance: Substitute motion (file suit but not serve): FAILED, 4 ayes, 10 noes. Amendment to require elimination of Alta Loma cul-de-sac: FAILED, 4 ayes, 10 noes. Amendment requiring developer/West Hollywood to guarantee funding for mitigation overruns: PASSED, 13 ayes, 1 no. Committee report as amended: PASSED, 12 ayes, 2 noes.