Target Corp. v. City of L. A.
| Decision Date | 23 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | B283480. |
| Citation | 26 Cal.App.5th 561 |
| Parties | TARGET CORPORATION, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. CITIZENS COALITION LOS ANGELES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Michael N. Feur , Los Angeles City Attorney, Kenneth Tom Fong and Kimberly Ai-Hua Huangfu , Deputy City Attorneys; Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Anna Corinne Shimko , Amy E. Hoyt and Juliet H. Cho for Defendants and Appellants.
The Law Offices of David Lawrence Bell and David Lawrence Bell for Plaintiff and Respondent Citizens Coalition Los Angeles.
The Silverstein Law Firm and Robert P. Silverstein for Plaintiff and Respondent La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of Hollywood.
Morrison & Foerster, Miriam A. Vogel ; Shoreline Law Corporation, Andrew S. Pauly and Damon A. Thayer for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
A city council passed an ordinance that (1) amended its neighborhood-based "specific plan" to create a new subzone for large commercial development, and (2) placed a half-built Super Target retail store into that new subzone. Two citizens groups attacked the city's ordinance, and the trial court ruled that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)1 because the city treated the creation of the new subzone as a follow-on to its prior, initial approval of the Target store rather than as an entirely new "project" under CEQA.
This appeal presents two questions. First, when a public agency has previously approved an environmental impact report for a specific development and subsequently amends its specific plan to authorize that development, how is that subsequent amendment to be analyzed under CEQA — as an entirely new "project" (subject to CEQA's three-tiered approach), or instead as a project for which an environmental impact report has already been prepared under section 21166? Second, does the ordinance in this case constitute impermissible "spot zoning" because it places the Super Target store in an "island" of ostensibly less restrictive zoning?
We hold that the city's ordinance should be examined under section 21166, and conclude that the city complied with CEQA in proceeding by way of an addendum to the prior environmental impact report because substantial evidence supports the city's finding that the specific plan amendment would not have any reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences beyond the construction of the Super Target store. We also hold that the ordinance constituted "spot zoning," but that it was permissible because the city did not abuse its discretion in finding that its amendment to the specific plan was in the public interest and compatible with the general plans of which it was a part. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court.
After initially proposing a smaller store, real party in interest Target Corporation (Target) eventually applied to defendant City Council of the City of Los Angeles (the City or City Council) to build a Super Target retail store (the Superstore). Target sought to build a nearly 75-foot tall, three-story structure: the third (and top) floor would house the 163,862-square-foot Superstore; the second floor would be a parking lot; and the ground floor would be home to several smaller retail stores, a pedestrian plaza, and a transit kiosk.
The Superstore was to be located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Western Avenue in Hollywood, California. That location is within two so-called "general plans" (the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles and the Hollywood Community Plan) and one "specific plan" (the Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan), the latter of which is also known as a station neighborhood area plan (or SNAP). At the time the Superstore was first proposed, the SNAP had five subzones (designated as "Subareas A through E"), and the Superstore was located in Subarea C.
The City Council commissioned and prepared an environmental impact report for the Superstore.
Because the proposed Superstore exceeded the height and parking space limitations of Subarea C, among other requirements, the City Council granted eight variances (called "exceptions") from the SNAP pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code section 11.5.7.F.2. Taken together, these variances largely authorized the Superstore to be built as proposed.
The City Council also approved the environmental impact report. Target began construction of the Superstore.
Plaintiffs La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of Hollywood (La Mirada) and Citizens Coalition Los Angeles (Citizens Coalition) (collectively, plaintiffs), both of which are "community association[s]" that "advocate for residential quality of life issues," filed separate petitions for a writ of mandate against the City (and naming Target as the real party in interest). As pertinent to this appeal, plaintiffs alleged that (1) the City's environmental impact report was deficient, thereby violating CEQA, and (2) the City Council's grant of variances was not supported by substantial evidence, thereby violating the Los Angeles Municipal Code.2
The trial court partially denied and partially granted plaintiffs' writ petitions. The court ruled that the environmental impact report was sufficient, but that six of the eight variances were not supported by substantial evidence.3 The court ordered all construction to cease.
Target appealed, and La Mirada cross-appealed.
While the appeals of the trial court's judgment were pending, the City Council enacted Los Angeles Ordinance No. 184,414 (the Ordinance or SNAP Amendment).
The Ordinance changed the law in two ways relevant to this appeal.
First, section 12 of the Ordinance created a new "Subarea F" within the SNAP. Subarea F, denominated as a "Large Scale Commercial Node" (boldface & some capitalization omitted), was to be applied only to areas within the SNAP encompassing "[(1)] commercial uses of over 100,000 square feet" "[(2)] on existing sites of over 3.5 acres in size, [(3)] within a quarter-mile of a transit station, and [(4)] within a quarter-mile of freeway on and off ramps." Developments within Subarea F could reach up to 75 feet in height and need only "substantially conform" with the SNAP's building facade requirements. But any such development would also be required to dedicate "at least 80%" of its ground-floor street frontage to retail uses, community facilities, and "other similar active uses"; to include pedestrian throughways along that frontage; include a pedestrian plaza of at least 10 percent of the "floor area," which must feature a transit kiosk, seating for the public, and an "Integrated Mobility Hub"; and build out at least 20 percent of its parking for electric vehicles.
Second, the Ordinance designated one location within the SNAP's area as Subarea F — namely, the location where the Superstore was being built.4
Although two other locations within the SNAP's boundaries were 3.5 acres in size and within a quarter-mile of transit stations and freeway access (three of the four eligibility requirements for Subarea F), the City has received no applications and has had no discussions regarding anyone seeking to construct a commercial project of 100,000 square feet or more at those locations. If such a project were ever proposed, the City acknowledged that the City Council would need to pass another ordinance that redefined Subarea F to include the geographic location to be developed.
In light of the Ordinance, a different division of this court dismissed the pending appeals as moot, but left the trial court's final judgment intact. (La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 586, 589-592 .)
The City prepared an "Addendum to the Certified [Environmental Impact Report] for the Target at Sunset and Western Project" (boldface & some capitalization omitted; the Addendum). The Addendum defined the "Revised Project" as (1) the amendment of the SNAP (as well as amendments of the Hollywood Community Plan and the transportation element of the City's General Plan), and (2) "all construction activities needed to complete the existing structure and the operation of" the Superstore.
The Addendum examined "whether the impacts of the Revised Project are the same, higher or lower than the Original Project" (which dealt solely with the construction of the Superstore). To provide the most up-to-date information, the City conducted updated analyses of air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, and traffic. The City then examined the full range of relevant environmental factors.
The City concluded that the Revised Project would "not require major revisions of the" previously certified environmental impact report because the SNAP Amendment did not involve any "new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." Because "none of [the] conditions ... requiring preparation of a subsequent [environmental impact report]" under section 21166 were "present," the City proceeded by way of Addendum.
The City Council approved the Addendum.
Plaintiffs filed two further petitions for a writ of mandate. In the operative petitions, plaintiffs alleged that the City: (1) violated CEQA by relying on the Addendum rather than authoring a "subsequent, supplement, or new [environmental impact report] for the new project that included a proposed amendment of the SNAP"; and (2) committed impermissible "spot zoning" by making the less onerous zoning requirements embodied in Subarea F applicable only to the Superstore.5
Following...
To continue reading
Request your trial