United Neighborhoods for L. A. v. City of L. A.

93 Cal.App.5th 1074

311 Cal.Rptr.3d 80

UNITED NEIGHBORHOODS FOR LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Appellants;

Fariborz Moshfegh, et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

B321050

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

Filed June 28, 2023

Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, Michael N. Feuer, Terry P. Kauffmann Macias, and John W. Fox ; Remy Moose Manley, Sabrina V. Teller, Sacramento, and Bridget K. McDonald, for Defendants and Appellants.

Jeffer Mangles Butler & Mitchell, Matthew D. Hinks and Daniel F. Freedman, Los Angeles, for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

Venskus & Associates, Sabrina Venskus and Rachael Andrews, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

RUBIN, P. J.

The City of Los Angeles (the City) approved a project at 1719-1731 North Whitley Avenue in Hollywood (the Project) that would replace 40 apartments subject to the City's rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) with a hotel. The City determined the Project was exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines relating to certain development projects.¹

The relevant guideline addresses what is often referred to as the "in-fill" exemption or the "Class 32" exemption.² We discuss the exemption in detail in the Discussion section of our opinion, but among other things, the in-fill exemption requires the project to be consistent with "all applicable general plan policies." (Guidelines, § 15332, subd. (a).)

The City's review of the Project included a hearing before the Department of City Planning and appeals to the Central Area Planning Commission and City Council. Each of these bodies determined the in-fill exemption applied. Respondent United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (United Neighborhoods) sought a writ of mandate in the Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing, among other things, that the in-fill exemption does not apply because the Project is not consistent with a General Plan policy concerning the preservation of affordable housing. The trial court granted the writ, effectively halting the Project until the City were to find the Project is consistent with that policy or 148-159 undertakes CEQA review. The City and real parties in interest appeal. We affirm the order granting the petition for writ of mandate.

BACKGROUND

A. The Project

Real party in interest Whitley Apartments, LLC (Whitley) owns the parcel located at 1719-1731 North Whitley Avenue in the Hollywood Community Plan Area of the City.³ Neighboring properties include multi-family residential buildings, a parking structure, and hotel, office, and retail uses. There are currently six buildings on the approximately one half-acre site, which include 40 apartment units subject to the City's RSO.

Among other things, the RSO limits annual rent increases for an existing tenant to a percentage of the prior year's rent calculated based on the Consumer Price Index. (L.A. Mun. Code, § 151.06(D).) It also limits evictions to 14 enumerated grounds. (L.A. Mun. Code, § 151.09(A).) These include demolition of the rental unit (L.A. Mun. Code, § 151.09(A)(10)(a)), but the landlord must provide notice and compensation consistent with the Ellis Act, governing demolition or other removal of rental units from the housing market. ( Gov. Code, § 7060 et seq. ; L.A. Mun. Code, §§ 151.22–151.28.)

In 2016, Whitley applied for a site plan review to demolish the existing apartment buildings and construct a 156-room hotel in their place. The hotel would stand 10 stories and include three levels of subterranean parking. In addition to guest rooms, the hotel would include various amenities available only to guests, such as a coffee shop and rooftop pool.

B. CEQA Exemption and Administrative Appeals

The City approved the site plan review and determined the Project qualifies for CEQA's in-fill exemption, such that formal CEQA review did not need to be undertaken. This appeal concerns only the latter determination. Our summary of the relevant background begins with an overview of the City's General Plan because, as we shall discuss in more detail, one of the requirements of the in-fill exemption is "consisten[cy] with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations." (Guidelines, § 15332, subd. (a).)

1. Overview of relevant provisions of the General Plan

This appeal principally involves the Framework Element and the Housing Element of the City's General Plan.⁴ The Framework Element explains that it "is the ‘umbrella document’ that provides the direction and vision necessary to bring cohesion to the City's overall general plan." "It provides a citywide context and a comprehensive long-range strategy to guide the comprehensive update of the general plan's other elements ...."⁵

The Housing Element is statutorily required to set forth certain assessments, goals, objectives, policies, and plans for implementation. ( Gov. Code, §§ 65302, subd. (c), 65583.) The first goal identified in the City's 2013-2021 Housing Element (in effect when the Project was approved) is "[a] City where housing production and preservation result in an adequate supply of ownership and rental housing that is safe, healthy and affordable to people of all income levels, races, [and] ages, and suitable for their various needs." One of the objectives relevant to this goal is to "[p]reserve quality rental and ownership housing for households of all income levels and special needs." Policies relevant to this objective include policy 1.2.2 ("Encourage and incentivize the preservation of affordable housing, including non-subsidized affordable units, to ensure that demolitions and conversions do not result in the net loss of the City's stock of decent, safe, healthy or affordable housing") and 1.2.8 ("Preserve the existing stock of affordable housing near transit stations and transit corridors. Encourage one-to-one replacement of demolished units").

In addition to the Housing Element's goals, objectives, and policies, the Housing Element also lists housing "programs"—many of which are framed at a level of generality similar to policies.⁶ One such program, expressly linked to policies 1.2.2 and 1.2.8, relates to the "[p]reservation of [r]ent-[s]tabilized [h]ousing [u]nits" and has the objective of "[p]reserv[ing] more than 638,000 RSO units ...."

2. Approval by Department of City Planning

In March 2019, the Department of City Planning noticed a public hearing regarding the site plan review and CEQA exemption and issued findings supporting a determination that the Project qualifies for the in-fill exemption. The findings discussed the General Plan's Framework Element, the Hollywood Community plan, the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, and the Planning and Zoning Code. The findings did not expressly address the General Plan's Housing Element.

In August 2019, the Planning Director determined the in-fill exemption applies. Relevant findings addressed the Project's consistency with the Hollywood Community Plan as well as the General Plan's Framework Element, Land Use Element, Mobility Element, Air Quality Element, and Sewage Facilities Element. Again, there was no express discussion of the general plan's Housing Element.

3. Appeal to the Central Area Planning Commission

United Neighborhoods appealed the Planning Director's determination to the Central Los Angeles Area Planning Commission (the Planning Commission). The document describing the basis for the appeal began with the comment that "[t]he findings contained in the determination letter are based on an incomplete and inaccurate reading of the Framework Element and the Hollywood Community Plan. The author also ignores the first goal of the City's 2013 Housing Element: [¶] Goal 1: A City where housing production and preservation result in an adequate supply of ownership and rental housing that is safe, healthy and affordable to people of all income levels, races, ages, and suitable for their various needs. " In a subsequent section of the document, United Neighborhoods stated that, "[w]hile it's unclear how many displaced tenants end up living on the street, we have seen the homeless population in Hollywood grow substantially larger as the [Department of City Planning] continues to approve projects which result in the removal of RSO housing. City Hall and the [Department of City Planning] have utterly failed to provide a mix of housing options for all income levels as required by the City's General Plan and State law." The appeal proceeded to discuss these issues in relation to the General Plan's Framework Element, the Hollywood Community Plan, and the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan.⁷

In a supplemental letter, United Neighborhoods "clarif[ied] for the record that [it was] appealing both the approval of the site plan review and the approval of the CEQA exemption ...." The letter further emphasized that, "[b]y exempting the Project from CEQA, the City has completely failed to disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project's significant direct and cumulative effects on the environment caused by permanently eliminating 40 rent-stabilized housing units, as well as the substantial direct and cumulative adverse effects on the human beings who will be displaced from their homes."

The Los Angeles Tenants Union (LATU) also filed an appeal with the Planning Commission raising issues similar to those raised by United Neighborhoods, including the preservation of RSO units. LATU's appeal focused on the Project's consistency with the Hollywood Community Plan, the Residential Hotel Ordinance, and various proposed planning documents and ordinances.

The Department of City Planning prepared a report for the Planning Commission's consideration of United Neighborhoods and LATU's appeals. The report paraphrased United Neighborhoods’ appeal as contending, in part, that "[t]he removal of 40 units which are subject to the Rent Stabilization...