Project Description Must Be Specific, Court Rules

CEQA project descriptions have to be specific. They have to include specific buildings in specific locations and can’t simply analyze the worst-case scenario. That’s the conclusion that an appellate court came to recently in a case involving the controversial 1-million-square-foot Millenium Hollywood project, which would include two high-rise towers and also incorporate the iconic Capitol Records building, near the intersection of Hollywood and Vine. In so ruling, the court shot down the idea that the purpose of CEQA is simply to analyze and mitigate the worst-case scenario. Rather, the court said, specific development plans must be laid out so that the public can comment knowledgeably on the project. Millenium Hollywood has been a controversial project that has engendered extreme opposition from neighbors and others in Hollywood. The project has had several iterations, most recently one that includes 35- and 46-story towers, affordable senior housing, and protection of both the Capitol Records building and the adjacent Gogerty office building. The project is virtually adjacent to the Hollywood and Vine Red Line subway station. A number of opposition groups, led by Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com, filed a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act, but the appellate decision came down to a question about the project’s description for the purposes of CEQA analysis. The project description is viewed as an extremely important first step in the CEQA analysis because it forms the basis for all other CEQA analysis. The project description for the Millenium Hollywood project included an overall amount of development – somewhere in the ballpark of 1.1 million square feet – as well as commitments to protect the Capitol Records and Gogerty buildings. But did not contain specific plans for specific buildings, saying that transfer of development on the site was still permissible. The project description did contain “illustrative” descriptions of potential development – for example, the 35- and 46-foot towers – but these were not nailed down as being the actual project. The appellate court shot this whole approach down. “In support of their argument that the conceptual ‘impacts envelope’ of project alternatives employed in the EIR complies with CEQA, appellants erroneously assert that so long as the worse-case-scenario environmental effects have been assumed, analyzed, and mitigated, and so long as no development takes place that exceeds those mitigation measures, CEQA’s purpose has been fully satisfied,” wrote Justice Ann Jones for the court. (Jones is a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge temporarily sitting on the Second District Court of Appeal.) She quoted a previous case as saying: “If an EIR fails to include relevant information and precludes informed decisionmaking and public participation, the goals of CEQA are thwarted and a prejudicial abuse of discretion has occurred.” In coming to this conclusion, Jones noted that despite discussion of a wide range of options in the project description, “no particular structure or structures are required to be built.” The Case: StoptheMilleniumHollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles, No. B282319 (filed July 31, 2019; published August 22, 2019) The Lawyers: For StoptheMilleniumHollywood.com: Robert P. Silverstein, robert@robertsilversteinlaw.com For City of Los Angeles: Kenneth Tom Fong, Office of the City Attorney, Kenneth.Fong@lacity.org For Millenium Hollywood: Michael Zischke, Cox Castle Nicholson, mzischke@coxcastle.com

Want to read more?

Subscribe to cp-dr.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now