The City of Los Angeles's general plan framework and accompanying environmental impact report have survived most aspects of a legal challenge. The Second District Court of Appeal found the EIR acceptable but rejected the city's findings regarding traffic impacts, remanding the case to the trial court. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld the EIR's discussion of alternatives, water resources analysis and housing policies. Assistant City Attorney Susan Pfann said city officials were happy not to have to readdress those issues and believed they could move forward quickly, depending on the remanded proceedings. Pfann said officials feel like they only narrowly lost the case. The attorney for the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, which filed the lawsuit, declined to comment. In July 1994, Los Angeles officials notified the public that they were preparing a general plan framework (GPF) and a draft EIR. Six months later, the city completed the two documents and invited public comment. The general plan framework was intended to guide future amendments of the 35 (now 37) community plans that compose the city's general plan. It addressed land use, housing, infrastructure, transportation and other elements. Because anticipated growth would severely impair circulation, the framework recommended several programs, including a Transportation Improvement Mitigation Plan (TIMP) and a new circulation element. The draft EIR stated that the mitigation measures would reduce the cumulative significant effects on transportation "to the extent feasible." The city completed the TIMP in February 1995. The document contained proposals that would cost $12 billion over 20 years, such as building roads, adding rail and bus lines, encouraging greater use of public transit and telecommuting. The TIMP was available to the public, but there was no public notice and the draft EIR was not recirculated. After public hearings, the city produced a final EIR in June 1996 and an amended general plan framework in July of that year. Both documents relied heavily on the TIMP mitigation measures. The city also prepared a statement of overriding considerations that said transportation impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The City Council approved the final EIR, the statement of overriding considerations and the framework and in December 1996. The Federation, the city's most powerful homeowners' organization, sued, challenging the EIR and the city's failure to recirculate the draft EIR after the TIMP was completed. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel Yaffe ruled the city was required to circulate the TIMP for public comment but rejected other challenges to the EIR. On appeal, the Federation argued that there was insufficient evidence to support findings that the mitigation measures will reduce significant effects on transportation, and that there was insufficient evidence that water resources would be adequate. The Federation also contended the EIR did not adequately address feasible growth alternatives or the impact of population growth. The city, which also appealed, argued that it did not need to circulate the TIMP. As to transportation, the Federation latched onto statements in the TIMP that indicated the city did not have enough money to carry out mitigations. The city defended its plan and did not rely on the overriding considerations it adopted. On this point, the court agreed with the Federation. "Although the city adopted the mitigation measures, it did not require that they be implemented as a condition of the development allowed under the GPF and made no provision to ensure that they will actually be implemented or ‘fully enforceable,'" Justice Walter Croskey wrote. The court suggested the city may comply with the California Environmental Quality Act by amending the framework to ensure mitigations are carried out as a condition of development, by restricting development, or by making a finding of overriding consideration regarding significant traffic impacts. In all other aspects, the appellate court sided with the city. In addressing water, the EIR projected an increase in both demand and supply, the latter based on water reclamation programs and increased groundwater pumping. The Federation argued that certain figures were inconsistent but proved no city error, the court held. As for alternative, the Federation challenged the range of scenarios the city presented. There were five: a growth moratorium; continued development under existing plans; a transit-centered growth plan; continued development based on Southern California Association of Governments' projections; and building based on the general plan framework but without its land use management policies. The appellate court called the alternatives "a meaningful basis for comparison with the project." Croskey wrote, "Petitioners must show that the alternatives are manifestly unreasonable and that they do not contribute to a reasonable range of alternatives. Since they cite no evidence or meaningful legal authority and offer no reasoned argument to so demonstrate, we reject their challenges to these alternatives." The court also upheld the city's population growth analysis against challenges based on employment expansion. The question of recirculating the documents was moot because the city had since circulated the TIMP, the court ruled. Pfann, the city's attorney, said the lawsuit was only delaying transportation improvements. "We look upon this general plan as not something that is causing these impacts, but as something that is mitigating them. It's a growth-control plan," she said. The Case: Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles, No. B126659, 00 C.D.O.S. 8054, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10651, filed September 28, 2000. The Lawyers: For the Federation: Lawrence Teeter, (213) 387-4512. For the city: Susan Pfann, assistant city attorney, (213) 485-5416.