The federal government has nearly settled on a plan for a new Los Angeles FBI headquarters in Westwood that would demolish the landmark 1970 Federal Building and construct two office towers in its place.

The General Service Administration’s plan would result in the construction of nearly 1 million square feet of office space, considerably less than a proposed development from three years ago that would have retained the Federal Building and built two buildings alongside it.

“It will be an ideal location because it is centrally located and the FBI has blessed it,” said Gene Gibson, regional public affairs officer for GSA’s Pacific Rim region. “We downsized the project a little bit in an effort to mitigate some of the concerns the neighbors might have.”

The alternate plan announced in 2004 that retained the Federal Building would have resulted in nearly 1.5 million square feet of total office space 937,000 square feet in the new buildings and 561,000 square feet in the Federal Building and drew fierce opposition from nearby homeowners.

However, the latest proposal, which will be spelled out in detail later this month when the GSA releases a final environmental impact statement, is already generating opposition from area residents and elected public officials despite the downsizing.

The local groups say that traffic congestion is the key concern over any possible future development at the GSA property. The adjacent Sepulveda and Wilshire boulevards intersection is one of the busiest corners in traffic-snarled Los Angeles and residents contend any additional development would make traffic unmanageable.

Indeed, the project’s leading opposition group is preparing a lawsuit to halt the proposal if the GSA moves ahead with a plan to build the new local FBI headquarters there.

“We believe the FBI needs expanded facilities, but we believe this is the worst place for it,” said Laura Lake, co-president of Coalition for Veterans’ Land, the opposition group which is composed of local residents.

Alternate sites

The plan calls for the GSA to first build one 470,000-square-foot building near the existing Federal Building, where the FBI would have its headquarters. Then the Federal Building would be razed and a second twin tower would be constructed perhaps by 2017 that would also serve the FBI.

The FBI currently occupies nine floors of the 17-story Federal Building with various other federal agencies taking the rest. The employees at the other agencies would be moved elsewhere.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, who represents the area, pressed for a comprehensive analysis of alternative sites, and is concerned that the final environmental impact statement completed by the GSA may not adequately address traffic congestion issues, according to a spokesman.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein encouraged the GSA to explore a possible FBI headquarters site in Downey, said Press Secretary Phil LaVelle. “(Feinstein) is sensitive to the community opposition to the GSA-recommended site,” he said.

However, Gibson said that the GSA did in fact conduct an extensive search before choosing the Westwood site.

“The FBI has all sorts of requirements,” Gibson said. “About 25 were sites identified and we went through them to see if they met the criteria. We settled on GSA-owned land on Wilshire Boulevard.”

Aviv Tuchman, president of the Westwood Homeowners Association, which is working with Lake’s group, said post 9/11 security concerns change the equation, since a stand-alone FBI headquarters could pose a target for terrorists.

“That area cannot sustain additional traffic burdens and density of people. And we feel it is an increased security risk,” Tuchman said.

For its part, the nearby University of California Los Angeles, with its many commuter students who use the streets of Westwood and nearby freeways, is staying out the battle.

“The university doesn’t take positions on development projects and we aren’t taking a position on this project,” said Phil Hampton, a spokesman for the university.

The plans

The draft environmental impact statement contains three design possibilities for the site. In addition to the two-phased building plan that would involve tearing down the Federal Building, another possibility is a “do nothing” plan that all sides agree is not really in play.

The third design plan the plan announced in 2004 would call for retaining and renovating the Federal Building and building two new office towers that would house a variety of agencies.

After the environmental statement is released at the end the month there will be a 30-day public comment period. Because the GSA is the governing body that approves the environmental impact statement, it is expected that the GSA will choose the design plan that it favors a point the local groups take issue with. However, Gibson said that because the building project is a federal project “the only one who would have jurisdiction over it is a federal entity.”

But homeowners may try in their lawsuit to question whether the GSA even has the authority to build on the land because they question whether the agency rightfully controls the site. They would like the site dedicated to veterans’ services, especially given the fact it is across from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs complex on the other side of the freeway.

Lake contends that records from the 1880s show that the land was put into a charitable trust for veterans and while the GSA received the use of the Federal Building site in the 1960s, it was not the Department of Veterans Affairs’ property to give away.

“We believe we have a solid case on these issues,” she said. “And we cannot locate a transfer of ownership from the VA to the GSA.”