CEQA Win Stops High-Rise Koreatown Project

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Joanne O’Donnell has overturned the city’s approval of Michael Hakim’s 27-story, 269-unit Koreatown apartment development, CatalinaTower. Environmental Justice Collaborative, Friends of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative and LTL Attorneys brought the case against the developer, claiming the city violated CEQA because it did not require the project obtain an environmental impact report. CatalinaTower was a controversial project in the Koreatown market that had been seeking approval for more than a decade. The project was planned on a residential street where most building heights do not exceed three stories. Ultimately, the judge agreed that there was a CEQA violation, overturning the approval. We sat down with Grace Yoo of EJC and LTL attorney Prashanth Chennakesavan to talk about the case and what’s next.

GlobeSt.com: What was the impetus for bringing CEQA litigation against the CatalinaTower project?

Grace Yoo: Since 2006, community organizations have been opposed to this building. First, they proposed 22 stories, and then in 2009, they proposed 35 stories. The City Planning Commission unanimously voted no to those proposals. In 2014, the came back and proposed 27 stories; however, from the 35-story proposal to the 27-story proposal, there was only one unit change. There are two-story and three-story buildings on the same block, and community organizations and community members came out in droves to oppose the project. At the time, the planning commissioners said that the project was wildly inappropriate and out of scale for the neighborhood. As a result, it was denied again. Then, Mayor Eric Garcetti got involved to support the project, because it was in line with his goal to build 100,000 new units by 2020. The developer then gave $1 million to the City’s Housing Trust Fund. As a side note, $1 million doesn’t allow for even three units to be built, because the current cost to develop a unit is $440,000. In my mind, the Mayor sold us out for less than three housing units. In 2015, we reached out to LTL Attorneys, who agreed that there was a CEQA violation and took the case pro-bono.

Prashanth Chennakesavan: The focus of the case was whether or not an environmental impact review is needed for a project of this scope. This goes to the very core of good government and the reason why zoning laws exist. If you are going to change the zoning laws and permit a building that is 5-times the height of anything in the surrounding area and permit double the number of units that you can otherwise place, then at the very least, California law requires that you conduct an environmental impact report to study the potential impacts that a project of this scale can have on CEQA areas. That is what we think the Planning Commission was thinking when it rejected this project three times. To bypass that report, which certainly could have been completed in the 10 years since this project has been in contemplation, speaks volumes.

GlobeSt.com: Why did the Planning Commission decide an environmental impact report wasn’t necessary?

Yoo: Because of the idea of spot zoning, which allows City Council to carve out and create a different zone for a single piece of land. We give that much power to city elected officials. When the Mayor stepped in and agreed to approve of the project, it meant that the City Council Member’s vote went from a requirement of 12 out of 15 to 10 out 15, so the Mayor stepping in was highly critical for this development to pass. Ultimately, the vote that passed was 11 to zero, because City Council members that are not in-agreement tend not to vote.

Chennakesavan: We think that legally speaking, you cannot spot zone without an EIR. The law in California is clear. When you have a project that may have an impact on a CEQA issue, then you cannot proceed without first conducting an EIR. That is why, we think that the Superior Court vacated the approval, and essentially said that the developer had to go through the EIR process. We think that spot zoning is within the discretion of City Council, but under California law, in order to get there, if you’re project may have an environmental impact, you must have an EIR. The relief we were requesting in this litigation was narrow, and the reason for that was because of how out-of-step with the law the city’s decision was.

Grace: We are really tired of having to go to court for the laws to be followed. Because this case was so egregious, it was well followed. Not every case gets this much attention from the city. I get calls from other people who call me to help them navigate the process. The problem is that you have to start early by attending all the hearings.

GlobeSt.com: Koreatown has seen a tremendous amount of development in recent years. Was this CEQA violation a property-specific issue, or have other projects in the market skirted the environmental requirements under CEQA?

Chennakesavan: Koreatown is already the densest community in California, and to say that even in that community you need to grant an exemption that doubles the allowed density under the code on a residential street without even considering the potential environmental impact is what really sets this project apart from appropriate development. There is certainly a reason to redevelop and develop, but it is a requirement under the law or, if you are going to depart from that, make sure that you consider the environmental impact that CEQA is intended to protect. Our hope is that developers in the future follow what the law requires and think in the front end of commissioning an EIR, so that all of the environmental impacts can be studied and mitigated.

Yoo: We have not challenged 50 developments in the last few years. We are not anti-development.

GlobeSt.com: What is next?

Chennakesavan: The current posture is that the approval has been vacated. Certainly, the developer does have the right to appeal. We think that we would be successful in the appellate court. It is really in the developer’s court. If they want to continue with the project as it is currently contemplated, we think they are going to have some challenges with the EIR. We have heard rumblings that they may not pursue this anymore. What we are concerned with at this time is good government and following the process.