As expected, a group of Westchester/Culver City residents, organized and angry, who have been loudly protesting the size of the 190-foot Entrada Office Tower project for months, filed suit last Friday against City Hall and the builders in pursuit of procedural and physical revisions.
Driven heavily by aesthetics, the Sonoma County attorney representing United Neighbors of the Westside said the primary thrust of the 5-page action is a bid to “correct” the “interruption” of the scenic view of 40 property owners across Centinela Avenue, atop the Westchester Bluffs, as well as the “concerns” of the wider public.
The view petition only is believed to involve Westchester residents since no Culver City residents are known to live within sight of the commercial district.
In seeking a writ of mandamus, lawyer Susan Brandt-Hawley told the newspaper that alleged deficiencies in the environmental impact report — including underestimating the aesthetic impact —need to be revised, and alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act must be corrected.
The suit devotes considerable space and weight to the city’s general building height limit of 56 feet, an ordinance enacted in 1990, it was emphatically noted, by the will of the people. This appeared to be stressed as strongly as asserted violations of environmental law.
End of the Year
An environmental specialist who said she has brought related lawsuits around the state, Ms. Brandt Hawley asked for “a temporary stay of physical actions” until a court ruling is made. She predicted that could take 6 months. “We believe the city should have approved a smaller project,” she said.
By prior agreement with the city, the Carlyle Group, LLC, which has teamed with Centinela Development Partners to present the project, will handle defense of the case.
No Surprise
With few exceptions, the loudest sound heard around City Hall this afternoon was a yawn, a reflexive move that the City Council and City Atty. Carol Schwab have been anticipating all spring.
“I can’t believe anybody would spend big money on this lawsuit,” one City Hall cynic said.
Easily the most stinging remark came from Alan Corlin, the immediate past Mayor. He was sitting on the City Council last month when Entrada was approved by a sharply divided vote.
Assessing Blame
Foiled and agitated in his attempts to attain a compromise on the height that might have reduced the tower to the 120-foot range, Mr. Corlin told the newspaper:
“It is too bad that on the night we voted, we did not have all five Councilmen paying attention. If we had, the building could have been the size of the Radisson Hotel (its next door neighbor).”
In expressing empathy for the modest number of Westchester residents whose long-range view of the Santa Monica Mountains, Baldwin Hills and the Los Angeles Basin may be narrowed, Mr. Corlin said, “I know of no one who has a ‘right’ to a view.”
No Regrets
Mehaul O’Leary, who joined the City Council two weeks after the pivotal vote by what is euphemistically referred to as “the old Council,” said he only has had a copy of the lawsuit since yesterday. “I still don’t know what to make of it,” he said.
Mr. O’Leary was crucial to the outcome of dramatic, but so far fruitless, post-vote attempts to revive at least a discussion of Entrada by the “new Council.”
By rejecting a request to become the needed third vote in resuscitating Entrada, Mr. O’Leary said that “I am very comfortable with my decision. If you ask me, Entrada is way too big. But I did what I believed, and believe, in my heart of hearts.”
Mayor Scott Malsin was “not surprised” by the residents’ lawsuit, but, he said, “I have not had a chance yet to fully review it.”
