Opinion
No. B283480.
09-13-2018
TARGET CORPORATION, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. CITIZENS COALITION LOS ANGELES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants
[Modification of opinion (26 Cal.App.5th 561, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), upon denial of rehearing.]
THE COURT. — IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on August 23, 2018, be modified as follows:
1. The paragraph commencing on the bottom of page 5 with "First," and ending on page 6 [26 Cal.App.5th 572, advance report, last par. continuing to 573] with "for electric vehicles" is modified to read as follows:
First, section 12 of the Ordinance created a new "Subarea F' within the SNAP. Subarea F is denominated as a "Large Scale Commercial Node." (Boldface & some capitalisation omitted.) Commercial developments within Subarea F that were "[(1)] over 100,000 square feet [(2)] on existing sites of over 3.5 acres in size, [(3)] within a quarter-mile of a transit station, and [(4)] within a quarter-mile of freeway on and off ramps" could reach up to 75 feet in height and need only "substantially conform" with the SNAP's building facade requirements. But any such development would also be required to dedicate "at least 80%" of its ground-floor street frontage to retail uses, community facilities, and "other similar active uses"; to include pedestrian throughways along that frontage; include a pedestrian plaza of at least 10 percent of the "floor area," which must feature a transit kiosk, seating for the public, and an "Integrated Mobility Hub"; and build out at least 20 percent of its parking for electric vehicles.
2. On page 6 [26 Cal.App.5th 573, advance report, 2d full par.], the paragraph beginning with "Although two other locations" and ending with "location to be developed" is modified to read as follows:
Although two other locations within the SNAP's boundaries were 3.5 acres in size and within a quarter-mile of transit stations and freeway access (three of the four eligibility requirements for Subarea F), the Ordinance did not
[26 Cal.App.5th 984b]
rezone either of those locations into Subarea F, and the City has acknowledged that the City Council would need to pass another ordinance that redefined Subarea F to include the geographic location to be developed.
3. On page 12 [26 Cal.App.5th 577, advance report, 1st par., lines 1-4], the sentence beginning on line 4 with "It is also" and ending on line 8 with "commercial space" is deleted.
4. On page 32 [26 Cal.App.5th 590, advance report, 1st full par.], the paragraph beginning with "Substantial evidence" and ending with "Subarea F" is modified to read as follows:
Substantial evidence supports the City Council's finding that the sole reasonably foreseeable consequence of creating Subarea F was the construction of the Superstore. The evidence in the administrative record indicates that the City Council has not committed itself to any modification of the currently existing commercial development on the two other parcels currently meeting Subarea F's size and proximity-to-transit requirements; that such modification is neither essential nor necessary to the creation of Subarea F; that no such modification is currently under review; that no such modification is either "intended" or "anticipated"; and that the creation of Subarea F does not create an incentive that makes modification of the existing commercial development all but certain (either on the two potential existing parcels or on other parcels that might be "cobbled together").
There is no change in the judgment.
Respondents' petition for rehearing is denied.