Judge rules against developer and in favor of L.A. on emergency eviction protections
The court rejected the city’s claim that the development on the site of the former City Hall Park on Wilshire Boulevard does not qualify as an emergency because it is a mixed-use development of retail and residential. In addition, the court did not believe the city could be compelled to pay for demolition costs that the developer had refused to pay.
The court concluded that despite the city’s claims that the project is intended to be a residential development, it is in fact the first major mixed-use development in Los Angeles that is in part residential. The court also found the developer guilty of refusing to demolish the buildings after the city began enforcement proceedings.
Because the building would have deteriorated to unacceptable standards in a residential area, the city had to act to preserve the building.
After the ruling, City Attorney Mike Feuerstein said, “The judge clearly set a standard that would hold a developer accountable for the decisions they make in mixed-use developments, which is exactly what we said was the City’s intent when this program was passed in 2008.”
“The court is right to hold a community to the responsibility that it has chosen to extend a development program to this particular site,” Feuerstein said.
The ruling is at least the second in less than a year on the question of whether development of a new mixed-use development on a former park site in the West Valley in downtown Los Angeles is covered by the city’s Development Projects Fund, or DPF, program. In May, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder of the Central District in Los Angeles ruled that the City of Los Angeles violated the Development Projects Act when it did not provide sufficient protections for the future occupants of the former City Hall Park site.
The building at issue was a parking garage built by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and a retail building and a hotel that was constructed at the site.
The developer, Hines Interests, sought an emergency petition from the City of Los Angeles (“City”), claiming that the project posed a threat to public health and safety because of the presence of illegal activity on the site and because of the condition of the buildings.
In a March 2 court filing, the city claimed that the project did not satisfy the conditions to qualify
