A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 14 June 1993
• Docket Number: No. B070097,B070097
• Citation: 16 Cal.App.4th 630,20 Cal.Rptr.2d 228
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: A LOCAL AND REGIONAL MONITOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents; UC LAND ASSOCIATES, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Page 228

20 Cal.Rptr.2d 228

16 Cal.App.4th 630

A LOCAL AND REGIONAL MONITOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents UC LAND ASSOCIATES, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. B070097.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

June 14, 1993.

As Modified July 8, 1993.

Review Denied Sept. 16, 1993.

Sabrina S. Schiller, Santa Monica, for plaintiff and appellant.

James K. Hahn, City Atty., Claudia McGee Henry, Sr. Asst. City Atty., Patricia V. Tubert, Keith Pritsker, Gail C. Weingart, Diane Smith Stepheson, Deputy City Attys., for defendants and respondents.

Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, Patrick E. Breen, Anthony J. Oliva, Mark R. Hartney, Lee A. Shirani, Nat Chavira, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Michael S. Woodard, Los Angeles, for real parties in interest.

TURNER, Presiding Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, A Local and Regional Monitor ("ALARM") appeals from the denial of its petition for writ of mandate to compel the City of Los Angeles to set aside and rescind the certification of an environmental impact report ("EIR") which was adopted for a 40-story commercial office building project located on the northwest corner of Sixth and Boylston Streets which was proposed by real party in interest, UC Land Associates, as part of its Los Angeles Center Master Plan project. Plaintiff contends on appeal we should order the trial court to issue a writ of mandate commanding the city: (1) to set aside its approval of the first portions of the Los Angeles Center project until the EIR examines the environmental impact of the project as a whole and the city's general plan complies with state law and (2) to complete and update its general plan as required by state law. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The Central City West Specific Plan

In order to assess the issues in this case, we begin by discussing briefly the background of how the project at issue originated and its relationship to Los Angeles's Central City West ("CCW") Specific Plan which was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council on February 20, 1991, and became effective April 3, 1991. The CCW plan provided for the development of 23.5 million square feet of non-residential development and 14,500 housing units in the areas within the Westlake Community Plan and the Silver Lake-Echo Park District Plan. The CCW area consists of approximately 465 gross acres, bounded on the north by the Hollywood Freeway, on the east by the Harbor Freeway, on the south by Olympic Boulevard, and on the west by Glendale Boulevard, Witmer Street, and Union Avenue. The area is part of an extensive expansion and redefinition of "Los Angeles city central core." The specific plan was developed through a partnership between the public and private sectors. The procedures taken to adopt the specific plan were long, exhaustive, and detailed. They included: (1) private sector financing to hire a consultant team; (2) background reports and expert information; (3) public review and comment at various stages of the process; (4) public meetings and workshops; (5) input from individual homeowners and business owners; (6) neighborhood meetings; (7) meetings with and input from the California Department of Transportation, the Southern California Association of Governments, the Southern California Rapid Transit District, and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission due to traffic considerations; and (8) formal public hearings with oral testimony and written communications. The result of the effort was a very detailed and comprehensive plan for the redevelopment of the City of Los Angeles which was adopted in February of 1991.

B. The Los Angeles Center Master Plan and the 40-Story Project

Before the CCW Specific Plan was adopted, the developer, UC Land Associates, applied to the city's Director of Planning for a project plan review under its proposed specific plan. The 40-story project at issue in this case is part of UC Land Associate's "Los Angeles Center Master Plan," an integrated project, which is to be located between Fourth and Sixth Streets and the Harbor Freeway and Bixel Street. The master plan consists of a long-range development of 5 million square feet of a mixed commercial office, retail, and hotel complex on 14 to 17 acres. The Master Plan would be constructed in several phases beginning with Phase IA which is known as the East Tower and is the subject of this litigation. The proposed project is described in the final EIR as follows: "The project applicant, UC Land Associates, wishes to initially build a 914,000-square-foot building and in the future develop the approximately three-block Los Angeles Center in accordance with the General Plan, i.e., a regional center commercial project. In addition, it is the objective of the project sponsor to develop the proposed Los Angeles Center to meet the goals and objectives of the proposed Central City West Specific Plan. The applicant wishes to produce an integrated site development which not only serves as a focal point for the area, but which also will allow large open plazas and pedestrian areas. [p] The project applicant will apply for a project development permit for a mixed-use (office/retail) building at the northwest corner of Sixth and Boylston Streets within the Central City West Area subsequent to completion of a Final EIR. The approximate 5,000,000-square-foot conceptual Los Angeles Center Master Plan is proposed to be constructed in several phases, commencing with the East Tower (Phase IA). Build-out of the conceptual Master Plan for the Los Angeles Center would total approximately 4,270,200 square feet of office space, 179,800 square feet of retail uses and a 550,000-square-foot, 500-room hotel. [p] The entire Los Angeles Center project, as presently conceptualized, would include the following: one 40-story tower and one 41-story tower with approximately 890,200 gross square feet of office space and 23,800 gross square feet of retail space each (one tower represents Phase IA, the East Tower, and one represents Phase IB, the West Tower), each with four levels of above-grade parking and five levels of below-grade parking for the two towers. The East and West Towers will have the same approximate floor areas even though the West Tower (Phase IB) is planned to be slightly taller (576 feet). This is due to a lower ground elevation and greater internal height to the entrance lobby in the West Tower. In addition to the East and West Towers the remainder of the conceptual Los Angeles Center will consist of a two-story retail structure (Phase IB1) adjacent to the northeast corner of the Phase IA tower; a 10 to 11 story office building with retail space on the first two floors (Phase IIA); a 65-story office tower with retail space on the first two floors utilizing the existing four level below-grade parking structure with 1,269 spaces and an additional four levels of below-grade parking (Phase IIB); a 25-story hotel structure consisting of approximately 500 rooms with banquet and conference facilities and retail space on the first two floors, along with three levels of above-grade parking and four levels of below-grade parking (Phase IIIA); and a 35-story office tower with ground floor retail space, three levels of above-grade parking and four levels of below-grade parking (Phase IIIB). [p] There are a number of urban design, transportation and transit improvements that are proposed as elements of the draft Central City West (CCW) Specific Plan. All of the transportation and transit improvements are designed to mitigate the traffic effects of the development associated with the Specific Plan and facilitate the movement to and from the area. As such, all the improvements will benefit the conceptual Los Angeles Center Master Plan. Where these elements would have physical implications for the Los Angeles Master Plan, they have been a factor in the conceptual design for the area."

C. The EIR

The developer submitted an Environmental Assessment Form in May 1989. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) of the City of Los Angeles Planning Department determined that an EIR was required to address a number of potential environmental impacts. A draft EIR for the project was prepared and circulated for public review and comment between September 30, 1990, and October 29, 1990. A noticed public hearing was held on May 30, 1991. The Director of Planning approved a plan review for the Phase IA project on August 12, 1991, subject to certain modifications and conditions. On August 16, 1991, ALARM ¹ filed a notice of appeal with the City Planning Commission to challenge the director's decision approving the project on the grounds: (1) the EIR was insufficient because it failed to examine the cumulative impacts from all phases of the project and all the reasonably foreseeable projects within the area of the project; (2) the EIR did not address the full extent of impacts that will be caused by the project; and (3) the project was inconsistent with the city's general plan. The developers also appealed from certain of the director's conditions. On October 10, 1991, following a public hearing, the City Planning Commission denied ALARM's appeal and granted the developer's appeal in part. ALARM appealed this decision to the city council. The City Council Planning and Land Management Committee held a noticed public hearing on December 3, 1991, and recommended denial of ALARM'S appeal. On December 11, 1991, the city council denied ALARM's appeal, adopted the planning commission's findings, certified the staged EIR, and approved the project.

D. The Petition for Writ of Mandate

On January 13, 1992, ALARM and Ms. Pope filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court in which it challenged the city's approval of the commercial building project on the grounds that the approval violated the requirements of the ...