City of Los Angeles City Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LAND USE MATTERS A publication of Alston & Bird’s Land Use Group January 2014 Each month, Land Use Matters will provide information and insights into legal and regulatory developments, primarily at the Los Angeles City and County levels affecting land use matters, as well as new CEQA appellate decisions. Please visit the firm’s website for additional information about our Land Use Group. City of Los Angeles City Council Planning Commission and Area Planning Commission Appointments New Planning Commissioners and Area Planning Commissioners were appointed by Mayor Garcetti and confirmed by the City Council. Renee Dake will lead the Planning Commission as president and Dana Perlman, who was appointed by former Mayor Villaraigosa, is the new vice president. Planning Commissioners Council Name Term Ends District Richard Katz, Owner 2 June 30, 2017 Richard Katz Consulting, Inc. Robert Ahn, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel 4 June 30, 2014 Western Investments & Properties Co. David Ambroz, Director of Corporate Citizenship & Social Responsibility 4 June 30, 2016 Disney | ABC Television Group John Mack, Retired 10 June 30, 2015 Los Angeles Urban League Maria Guadalupe Cabildo, Co-Founder and President 14 June 30, 2014 East LA Community Corporation Caroline Choe, CEO 14 June 30, 2016 NewBridge Investments Marta Segura, Founding Partner 8 June 30, 2018 Grassroots Organizational & Leadership Development Renee Dake Wilson, Partner/Architect 4 June 30, 2018 Dake Wilson Architects Dana Perlman, Attorney 5 June 30, 2017 Perlman & Associates Land Use Matters Area Planning Commissioners Council Name Term Ends District Central Samantha Millman, Vice President 4 June 30, 2018 Millco Investments Harbor Hector Serrano, Patient Financial Resource Worker 15 June 13, 2018 Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center Mitchell Harmatz, Owner 15 June 30, 2014 Plaza Automotive Center North Valley Filiberto Gonzalez, Founder & CEO 12 June 30, 2018 Social Impact Consulting, LLC South Los Angeles Gail Willis, Teacher 10 June 30, 2018 Los Angeles Unified School District South Valley Steve Cochran, Attorney 4 June 30, 2018 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Janny Kim, Vendor Relations Manager 5 June 30, 2015 Southern California Edison West Los Angeles Joseph Halper, Retired 11 June 30, 2018 National Parks Service Development Services Reform Postponed In November 2013, the City Council voted to delay the functional transfer of development services of multiple City departments to create a new Development Services Department. On December 11, 2013, the Council approved the restoration of funding and position authority to the Departments of Building and Safety, Transportation and Fire, and the Bureau of Engineering so that they can continue to function independently through the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2014. To review the Council file, click here. Housing Element 2013-2021 On December 3, 2013, the City Council adopted the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element assesses the local housing needs and provides goals, objectives, policies and programs to assist the decision makers in meeting those identified needs. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2021, is 82,002 housing units. Download the new Housing Element here. Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning General Plan Update 2035 The revised draft of the General Plan Update was released in October 2013. The Planning Commission hearing on the General Plan Framework, Land Use Element and Mobility Element is scheduled for February 26, 2014. The revised draft and complete public hearing schedule can be found here. Land Use Matters - 2 - California Environmental Quality Act Court Orders City of Los Angeles to Vacate Approval of Hollywood Community Plan On December 11, 2013, Judge Allan Goodman of the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision in the three challenges to the Hollywood Community Plan Update (HCP Update). The court’s tentative decision is to order the City of Los Angeles to vacate its approval of the HCP Update and any ancillary actions such as zoning ordinances and the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the HCP Update. The court’s decision also states that the City may not approve any permits or entitlements that “derive from the [HCP Update] or its EIR” until a new EIR is certified and the City makes required findings that the HCP Update is consistent with the City’s General Plan and other applicable laws. The challenges to the HCP Update were brought against the City by petitioners Fix the City (L.A. County Superior Court Case No. BS138580), the La Mirada Neighborhood Association of Hollywood (Case No. BS138369) and Save Hollywood.org (Case No. BS138370). The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce intervened as a separate party in the litigation and argued with the City. The court found that the City violated CEQA and California’s planning and zoning laws. The court found a number of deficiencies and noted in its decision, “One can only wonder how this planning process ran so far off the track when consideration is given to the recent history of the [General Plan] Framework itself and the corrective action it required.” With regard to the CEQA claims, the petitioners primarily contended that the EIR for the HCP Update was fundamentally flawed because it utilized an improper figure for the existing population of the HCP Update area. The City overestimated the existing population of the HCP Update area by relying on a population estimate provided by the Southern California Association of Governments in 2005 (224,426 residents). The petitioners provided more accurate 2010 U.S. Census figures (198,228 residents). Because the Draft EIR analyzed the potential environmental impact of the HCP Update by forecasting a specific population as of 2030 (approximately 249,000 residents), the City’s use of a higher existing population figure meant, according to the court, that the City underestimated the number of new residents that would be added to the HCP Update area. In CEQA terms, the court determined that the City utilized an improper “baseline” for its analysis. It also determined that, because this “principal key to the analytical foundation” for the EIR was erroneous, so, too was the EIR’s discussion of impacts utilizing this baseline (such as water supply, energy demand and solid waste production). The court specifically called out the EIR’s deficient discussion of impacts regarding public services (police, fire, etc.) in light of the population figure. It is worth noting that the court also criticized the City for the procedures utilized to address the population figure dispute. The court noted that the City could have, but did not, recirculate its EIR to account for the updated U.S. Census figure. Instead, the City revised its EIR five days before the City Council certified the document. The court further noted that the act of revising the EIR demonstrated that the City was aware its original population baseline figure was erroneous. Lastly, the court criticized the City for failing to include in the administrative record evidence regarding the appropriateness of SCAG’s 2005 population figure. The court noted that the City could not simply rely on SCAG’s figure without providing the rationale for that figure. In addition to the court noting that the use of the improper baseline figure for the population of the HCP Update area meant that many of the EIR’s analyses were in turn deficient, the court also addressed several other CEQA claims made by petitioners. First, the court found that the City’s EIR failed to adequately consider a sufficient number of feasible alternatives to the project. Such an analysis is required under CEQA in order to provide governmental decision makers with the opportunity to select an alternative that may reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts (and such an analysis is required even if a project will not have a significant environmental impact under CEQA). In the HCP Update EIR, the City considered only two alternatives to the project and one of those was the “no project” alternative. The court further found that the City’s determinations that project alternatives were infeasible were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record (the court noted that the City’s evidence regarding infeasibility was “conclusory” in nature). In addition to the CEQA claims, the court also found for the petitioners regarding to their planning and zoning law claims. More specifically, the petitioners claimed that the HCP Update was inconsistent with the General Plan Framework and therefore in violation of provisions in California Government Code and City requiring such land use consistency. The court agreed with the petitioners and concluded, broadly speaking: (1) that the General Plan Framework identifies the HCP Update area as growth-neutral, while the HCP Update supports growth; and (2) that the Framework requires the City to monitor growth in the HCP Update area to ensure that population growth does not outpace infrastructure required to support that growth, but the HCP Update does not provide for any such monitoring program. To download a copy of the proposed statement and decision, click here. Land Use Matters - 3 - Subscribe to Land Use Matters Contributing Authors Edward J. Casey, Partner Kathleen A. Hill, Planning Director Environmental & Land Use Group Environmental & Land Use Group [email protected] [email protected] This publication by Alston & Bird LLP provides a summary of significant developments to our clients and friends. It is intended to be informational and does not constitute legal advice regarding any specific situation. This material may also be considered attorney advertising under court rules of certain jurisdictions. Land Use Matters - 4 -.