Beverly Hills Residential-Business Alliance v. City of Beverly Hills
Filed 4/26/06 Beverly Hills Residential-Business Alliance v. City of Beverly Hills CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| BEVERLY HILLS RESDENTIAL- BUSINESS ALLIANCE FOR A LIVABLE COMMUNITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS et al., Defendants and Respondents; BEVERLY HILLS LUXURY HOTEL et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. | B183973 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS092135) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David P. Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed.
The Silverstein Law Firm, Robert P. Silverstein for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Laurence S. Wiener, City Attorney for Beverly Hills; Richards, Watson & Gershon, Mitchell E. Abbott, Ginetta L. Giovinco, for Defendants and Respondents.
O'Melveny & Myers, Brian S. Currey, David A. Lash, and Jennifer R. Szoke; Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, and Allan B. Cooper, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal concerns an environmental impact report prepared for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA).[1] Plaintiff, Beverly Hills Residential-Business Alliance for a Livable Community, appeals from a May 26, 2005 judgment denying its consolidated writ petitions challenging certification of the environmental impact report. The judgment is in favor of defendants, the City of Beverly Hills, the City Council of the City of Beverly Hills, and the Parking Authority of the City of Beverly Hills, and real parties in interest, Beverly Hills Luxury Hotel LLC, and Athens Beverly Hills LLC. The project in question--the Beverly Hills Gardens and Montage Hotel Project--is a joint public and private venture consisting of a multi-story hotel with more than 200 guestrooms, up to 25 condominiums, a separate 3-story building for residential and commercial use, a public garden, and a 4-level subterranean garage. The project would occupy two and a half acres in the heart of the city's business district. The trial court found plaintiff's challenges to the environmental impact report were without merit. No prejudicial abuse of discretion occurred and we affirm the judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
The joint public and private project was the subject of an initial November 8, 2001 memorandum of understanding. On November 18, 2002, a second memorandum of understanding was entered into and approved by the city. Project and environmental assessment applications were filed on December 10, 2002. A notice of intention to prepare an environmental impact report was issued on January 31, 2003. The draft environmental impact report was circulated for public comment on November 14, 2003. Six planning commission hearings were held between October 2003 and April 2004. A supplemental draft environmental impact report was circulated on May 14, 2004. Five city council hearings were held in July 2004. On July 28, 2004, the city council approved resolutions amending the city's general plan, specifically the land use map, to redesignate the project location from low-density commercial to the project's specific plan, adopting the specific plan, and certifying the final environmental impact report.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends it was an abuse of discretion to certify the environmental impact report in that: it disregarded the cumulative impact of uses on adjacent parcels; its traffic analysis was distorted; the city concealed the need for and effect of a general plan amendment, resulting in â€
