L.A., Venice Sue Culver City Over Marina Place : Development: The lawsuit charges an environmental impact report used in approval of the mall is flawed.

The inter-city fighting over Marina Place intensified this week as the city of Los Angeles and the Venice Town Council filed their long-threatened lawsuit against Culver City, accusing it of downplaying environmental problems in approving the regional shopping mall.

The suit charges that Culver City’s approval of the $159-million project was based on an inadequate environmental impact report. It also contends that Culver City officials found faulty “overriding considerations” to justify the development near Lincoln and Washington boulevards despite concerns that it would clog traffic, increase sewage, pollute the air and restrict public access to the beach.

The city “abused its administrative discretion” and failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act with its inadequate replies to public comments on the draft environmental report, according to the suit, filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

For example, when Culver City officials addressed concerns that the development would lead to traffic jams on Lincoln Boulevard, their response was simply “the recommendation offered is noted,” the suit states.

The suit also argues that comments about noise, the construction phase, alternative locations, the mall size, compatibility with its surroundings, and other kinds of projects that might be better suited to the site were also not addressed adequately.

Joseph Pannone, Culver City’s special counsel, said Wednesday that “there’s no question that one cannot prepare a perfect (environmental impact report). But the courts don’t require perfection. . . . What they require is substantial, good-faith effort” at preparing the document, which is what Culver City has done, he said.

But the suit claims “Culver City in effect sticks its head in the sand and pretends it does not hear the bad news.”

Because the Marina Place would be built at the western tip of Culver City on a site nearly surrounded by Los Angeles neighborhoods, “virtually all project impacts fall in and on Los Angeles, while Culver City derives all benefits,” the lawsuit states.

Marina Place should be cut in size or redesigned for other uses, said Debra Bowen, attorney for the Venice Town Council community group and for Dell Chumley, a Venice resident and former president of the council who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

If the Los Angeles-Venice plaintiffs prevail, a judge would order Culver City to do another environmental impact report, said Bill Childs, Los Angeles deputy city attorney. Attorney Bowen said that if another report is ordered, a comprehensive agreement between Culver City and the mall developers, scheduled to be signed today, would become void.

The agreement, approved by the council last month, was designed to shield Marina Place from any changes in city laws--such as the 56-foot building-height limit approved by Culver City voters in the municipal election April 10.

A spokesman for Marina Place co-developer Melvin Simon & Associates estimated that the suit would take at least six months to resolve, during which construction would probably be blocked. Michael L. Marr, the company’s vice president for development, said the start of construction had been scheduled for this summer before the suit was filed.

The suit is the latest installment of a running battle between the two cities, and echoes a legal fight two years ago. Then, Los Angeles and the Venice Town Council sued Culver City after the first phase of Marina Place got preliminary approval. A Superior Court judge barred Culver City from granting any further approvals for Marina Place until a new environmental report was prepared. That report, which the City Council adopted in March, is the one challenged in this week’s suit

The California Environmental Quality Act requires that harmful environmental effects of large developments be identified and offset as much as possible. But cities can also declare that “overriding considerations” exist, such as the economic benefits, to allow a project to go ahead despite its negative effects on the environment.

The Culver City Council found that with Marina Place, the overriding considerations included enhancement of the city’s image and an estimated $15 million in revenue to the city over 10 years. Plans for the mall, to be anchored by Nordstrom and Bullock’s stores, call for 150 smaller stores and a six-screen movie theater.

Culver City Mayor Steven Gourley said the Los Angeles challenge to Marina Place was “hypocritical.” He noted that in nearby parts of Los Angeles, several larger developments such as Channel Gateway in Venice and Playa Vista, an extensive proposed planned community, are in the works.

“When you compare Marina Place and Playa Vista, Marina Place is a speck of dust. . . . I don’t favor downgrading Marina Place unless L.A. downgrades,” he said.

He acknowledged that the relationship between the two cities has become strained but said it is up to Los Angeles to make the first conciliatory move.

Gourley, a slow-growth advocate, dissented when the City Council adopted the environmental report and overriding considerations, but said now that “I’m not about to take the side of the city of L.A. against the city of Culver City when it’s clear that the last 20 years of development are the (result) of the city of L.A.”