Council approves $35 million Playa Vista jobs tax-credit package with safeguards

The Los Angeles City Council voted to approve a jobs-incentive agreement for the Playa Vista development and a related Mello‑Roos resolution after a lengthy presentation and public hearing.

City staff summarized the package, saying the agreement would provide credits against business and utility taxes tied to jobs at the Playa Vista site. Jerry Miller of the City Administrative Office said the basic per-job credit would be $2,700, discounted to $2,100 for some relocated positions and $1,700 for seasonal ‘‘sound stage’’ jobs. He said benefits were capped at $35,000,000 and that developers would receive an $8,000,000 credit against developer fees; no job benefits would be paid until the developers had generated sufficient taxable payroll to ‘‘burn off’’ that credit.

Opponents called the deal corporate welfare. Robert Benson, a Loyola Law School professor who identified himself during public comment, said the package amounted to a taxpayer handout without independent studies showing adequate public return. ‘‘It stinks because this is a handout of corporate welfare,’’ Benson said, arguing the city had no adequate independent analysis of the return on a $35 million package.

Labor and community supporters countered. Miguel Contreras, secretary‑treasurer of the LA County Federation of Labor, told the council the project would bring ‘‘thousands of good jobs’’ and pledged union participation through a project labor agreement. Council members supporting the deal emphasized workforce development commitments and training partnerships with community colleges and community‑based organizations.

Council debate also addressed environmental and traffic concerns and labor protections. Councilmember Holden, who had previously voted against the project, said his remaining support depended on concrete commitments to mitigate traffic impacts, including an off‑ramp from Highway 90. Councilmembers and city attorney staff moved and accepted a technical amendment clarifying that nothing in specified contract provisions would affect negotiated collective‑bargaining agreements. Staff also recommended, and the council approved as part of the package, funding to retain outside counsel for implementation work: an initial payment of $100,000 for legal work already done and an additional $80,000 to finish implementation tasks.

Proponents said the agreement included performance triggers and a letter of credit to ensure the city could recover money if jobs were not maintained. Patricia Tubert, senior assistant city attorney, described contract amendments prepared after committee review and said the team had added implementation agreements to be completed after contract execution.

The consolidated committee motion, as amended on the floor to protect collective bargaining and to allocate funds for outside counsel implementation, passed on the roll call. The clerk recorded 13 ayes; items 9 and 10 were approved and will be sent forthwith to the mayor for further processing.

What happens next: City staff will complete contract documents, begin the exclusive implementation and monitoring steps required by the agreement, and report back to council on benchmarks and compliance. The council added a requirement that certain implementation benchmarks and any exit strategy be reported and, where noted, returned to the council for approval.