Advertisement

Ruling May Drastically Alter Use of L.A. Land

Times Staff Writer

In a ruling that could significantly influence land-use planning in Los Angeles, the state Supreme Court on Thursday let stand an appellate ruling that blocked construction of a proposed a 26-story, $88-million office and shopping complex in Westwood Village.

The justices, without dissent, rejected a challenge to a decision issued in March by a state Court of Appeal requiring city officials to conduct an environmental impact study before issuing a building permit for major developments. The city grants permits for more than 100 such projects annually.

The action drew praise from a state official, and from lawyers in the case who regard the ruling as a victory for neighborhood and environmental groups.

Advertisement

“The court’s action means that building permits for major projects in congested areas are subject to state environmental law,” state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp said. “This is a welcome step toward safeguarding the quality of life in communities facing the traffic, noise and air pollution that accompany rapid growth.”

‘Discretionary’ Act

In its ruling, the appellate court held that issuance of such permits was a “discretionary” act, requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

The act says reviews must be done for any private or public project that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Advertisement

Attorneys for the city and the developer had urged the high court to review the ruling, saying the issuance of a permit--after zoning, height-limit and other previously enacted city requirements were met--was a “ministerial” or administrative function not requiring an environmental impact report.

They warned that unless the decision was overturned, it would create “chaos” in a process in which 40,000 permits are issued annually--an estimated 100 to 150 of which involve major projects.

Attorneys for the developer in the case, Wilshire-Glendon Associates, said the appellate ruling could bring new construction to a halt and potentially affect $3.7 billion in planned projects. They said it would take months longer to obtain building permits if understaffed city departments must review thousands of pending projects to determine whether environmental impact reports are required.

Advertisement

But lawyers for Friends of Westwood, a homeowners group backed by the Sierra Club, the California Planning and Conservation League Foundation and the attorney general’s office, said local officials should be obligated to take into account the impact of such projects on the surrounding community.

Enthusiastic Response

The high court’s action drew an enthusiastic response from attorneys for Friends of Westwood, the leader in a fight against the 364,000-square-foot development planned at the site of the Ship’s Coffee Shop on Wilshire Boulevard.

“This dramatically changes the course of land-use planning in Los Angeles,” said Barry A. Fisher, a lawyer representing the group. “It means that all major projects in the city will be subject to an open decision-making process, as opposed to decision making in some darkened room in City Hall.”

Deputy City Atty. William F. Childs said officials will begin a study to see how to implement the decision. “Hopefully, a line can be drawn to limit the projects requiring reports,” he said. “Otherwise, we will really have a problem.”

The case arose in 1985 when Friends of Westwood, concerned over the effect of the development on streets and other services in the area, asked city officials to conduct an environmental impact study of the development before a building permit was issued. The officials refused the request, and the homeowner group went to court in an effort to block the project.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge last July refused to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the project pending trial on the issue.

Advertisement

But in its ruling March 27, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

In the permit-issuance stage, the court said, city officials made discretionary decisions concerning Fire Code requirements, density limits and traffic flow in and out of the building. In such decisions, the city could have eased any adverse impact found in an environmental study, the court said.

Advertisement