Westwood Growth Foes Claim City Must Require Impact Reports

Two Westwood residential groups opposed to new high-density development along Wilshire Boulevard and in apartment areas near UCLA have raised a legal point that they believe could halt or at least delay several proposed building projects.

The residents say that the city of Los Angeles will violate state law if it does not require environmental impact reports before approving two new high-rise office buildings on Wilshire Boulevard or before granting exemptions to a building moratorium currently in effect on apartment construction in North Westwood Village.

The two groups are basing their argument on the California Environmental Quality Act, which was passed 15 years ago and requires environmental impact reports on projects that the city has discretionary power to approve or reject.

Laura Lake of the Friends of Westwood said that the group’s overriding goal in raising the issue of the reports with the Los Angeles city attorney is to bring Westwood development, particularly the two high-rises proposed on Wilshire Boulevard, under control.

Her organization, Lake said, is prepared “to go the distance legally” and file lawsuits if necessary to get the city to act “in a legally responsible manner.”

The Los Angeles city attorney’s office may determine this week whether environmental reports are necessary on the Wilshire Boulevard high-rise proposals. A decision on the the North Westwood Village reports will take longer, according to a spokesman for the city attorney.

Preparation of a single environmental impact report takes anywhere from six months to a year and gives opponents of a project additional opportunities to fight their cases before public agencies.

The high-rises, at least 15 stories each, are planned on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Glendon Avenue where Ship’s restaurant was located and on the southeast corner of the same intersection where there was a two-story bank building.

“We want to keep density down and get the city to abide by state law,” Lake said. “We also want the city to deal with the negative impact that overbuilding in the area has on traffic and other aspects of the quality of life in Westwood.”

Bob Breall, president of the North Village Residents Assn., said that his organization wants environmental impact reports on six exemptions to the building moratorium in North Westwood Village, bounded by Veteran, LeConte and Gayley avenues.

The exemptions under consideration involve the replacement of 61 apartment units with buildings totaling more than 200 units. The exemptions have the support of Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents Westwood.

“It’s clear that environmental impact reports are necessary on the exemptions,” said Breall, who has opposed the exemptions as “undermining the intent of the moratorium to give us time to rewrite the Westwood Community Plan.”

Deputy City Atty. Bill Childs said last week in an interview that he had reached a preliminary opinion on the high-rise planned for the northeast corner of Wilshire and Glendon.

In his opinion, the city has no “significant” discretion on the project, because the developer has asked for no zone change, variance, or any other major zoning alteration to what the law now allows--any one of which could trigger the need for an environmental impact.

“What Friends of Westwood contend is that there is city discretion in that the developer has asked for the removal and replacement of two city trees on the property,” Childs said. “We do not consider that request a significant alteration of zoning.”

Regarding the high-rise proposed on the southeast corner, Childs said that the developer has requested a vacating of city rights to space under Wilshire Boulevard for the construction of its subterranean parking structure.

Because the developer has not yet formulated specific plans for the project, Childs said, the city does not know whether the developer is seeking 5 inches or 10 feet under the boulevard.

“In such requests,” Childs said, “the city approves the vacation, since it does not make any difference to the city. But the key point of the issue is whether the city has discretion . . . to deny the project. We have not reached a decision on that question.”

Childs conceded that the legal question raised by the Friends of Westwood is “certainly inventive,” but said that the city’s position generally has been more practical. “If you say that giving permission to remove a tree is discretionary,” Childs said, “then you would put the city in a position of having to require environmental impact reports for many more projects. We do not think that was the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act.”

No one at the city attorney’s office would discuss the Westwood Village argument in detail. But Yaroslavsky said that it appears from his talks with that office’s attorneys that environmental impact reports will indeed be required.

“We do have the discretionary power on those cases,” Yaroslavsky said.

Yaroslavsky said that the legal questions surrounding the environmental impact reports should be addressed, but he warned that, in the case involving North Westwood Village, the result may be detrimental to the ultimate goal of providing more student housing in the area.

He said that in backing the exemptions, he required developers to scale back their projects from what was permitted by existing zoning. “When the moratorium expires in January,” Yaroslavsky said, “the developers will be able to build more apartments than we were allowing them under the exemptions--and provide none of the apartments for students.”

Breall, a frequent critic of Yaroslavsky on the issue, said that the councilman is merely trying to place the blame for the destruction of a low-density community on people who are trying to preserve the character of community.