VOICES-Historically Los Angeles has used its own City Attorneys to defend the City in land use, CEQA and Brown Act litigation. The frequency of these types of lawsuits has increased because the City has failed to adhere to the requirements of CEQA and the Brown Act. This failure has strained the capacity of the City Atto rneys to provide CEQA advice and defend CEQA litigation impacting the City's own public projects.
The City Council has authorized a three-year contract to hire a panel of four outside land Use/CEQA Counsels to defend the City in land use, CEQA and Brown Act litigation. It is indefensible for the City to spend precious taxpayer dollars hiring outside counsel to defend itself against residents.
Land use entitlement approvals that are granted by the City include a condition requiring the developer to defend and indemnify the City in the event of Real Party litigation. The change of practice to exercise its rights to the defense and indemnification from developers has not been tested.The City could incur massive legal expenses hoping it will be reimbursed by developers. There is no guarantee that all or part of the expenses incurred will actually be reimbursed.
On August 28, 2013 over the strong community objections, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to approve the 325 residential unit Il Villaggio Toscano (IVT) project at Sepulveda Blvd. and Camarillo. The IVT developer received entitlements to build 325 multi-family residential units and 52,000 square feet of commercial with 1,206 parking spaces. Height of the buildings would be 82 feet. The gross floor area for the project would be 582,359 feet. The project adds 5,800 new daily car trips.
Attorney Robert Silverstein was hired by the Sherman Oaks Residents For a Safe Environment to protect the public interest. (Sherman Oaks Residents for a Safe Environment v City BS145096LASC). The lawsuit was filed against the City because residents in good faith believe that the entitlements granted by the City were invalid on land use, environmental approvals and Brown Act grounds.
Residents rightly objected to the traffic, noise, congestion, infrastructure damage and pollution that the massive 8-story, 325 unit apartment buildings would bring. The EIR was devoid of meaningful mitigation measures and contained many flawed conclusions. The lengthy document obfuscated traffic, congestion and infrastructure problems while going on at length about tangential matters ignoring mitigation measures that are required by CEQA.
The EIR reached faulty conclusions claiming impacts were reduced to “less than insignificant” when in reality the impacts are significant.
The City Attorney is now hiring an army of outside lawyers to fight the residents who believe that the land use and environmental entitlements were granted improperly. The solution to this dilemma is for the City to scrupulously abide by State law, stop granting faulty entitlements and avoid engaging in fruitless litigation against residents. The City should not spend another dime ganging up with outside law firms to defend environmental and land use entitlements that were approved improperly.
● Learn more about Council File No. 14-1606.
(Gerald A. Silver is President of Homeowners of Encino. He served on the Citizens Advisory Committee that helped craft the Ventura Blvd. Specific Plan. He can be reached at [email protected])
-cw
{module [1177]}
CityWatch
Vol 13 Issue 7
Pub: Jan 23, 2015
