Have you ever wondered how a lawsuit containing environmental concerns can stop a project? Last month, the California Court of Appeal (a court that is one step below the California Supreme Court) considered that question in the context of a proposed development named the ICON at Panorama Project, which will consist of about 623 residential units and 60,000 square feet of commercial space. That project is located in Panorama City in the Valley above Los Angeles.
The Court of Appeal considered whether a draft and final environmental impact report properly described this project and adequately addressed a comment regarding local sewer capacity. California law requires that, among other things, large projects like the ICON at Panorama Project must be sufficiently defined so that those interested can participate in the public comment process. That process allows those affected by a project to submit comments with concerns and recommendations. Out of that process, a project’s proponents are required to consider their project’s impacts, potential alternatives to mitigate those impacts, and the government’s rationale for approving a project. And if a project fails to meet these standards, a Court may order them to try again, effectively delaying the project since a large project like ICON at Panorama Project needs an adequate environmental impact statement before breaking ground. Avoiding potential delays from environmental lawsuits is why NFL Sofi Stadium backers took advantage of an exemption to these reporting requirements by seeking public approval for their project through the City Council (which is similar to seeking approval through a ballot initiative).
IMAGE: HOLLYWOOD PARK LAND COMPANY
In this case, a lower court decided that the ICON at Panorama Project’s environmental impact reports did not adequately define the project that was approved. Instead, it found that the project selected wasn’t properly defined because the City approved a version of the project that wasn’t expressly listed in one of the environmental impact reports. The lower court also found that the environmental impact did not adequately address a concern about local sewer capacity. As a result, the lower court required the project to prepare a new or supplemental environmental report that was legally sufficient before proceeding with the project.
The California Court of Appeal disagreed, allowing the project to move forward. It found that while the environmental reports did not expressly spell out a project with 623 residential units and 60,000 square feet of commercial space, it considered various similar projects that “retained the same components” of the plan that was adopted: “The only changes involved the composition and ratio of the residential to commercial footprint, but the proposals demonstrate that the 31 overall size of the project remained consistent, and the site remained the same.” The Court of Appeal also found that the report’s conclusion that the Hyperion sewage treatment plant could handle the additional wastewater sufficiently addressed, among other items, a comment expressing concern about wastewater capacity.
The stakes of this litigation underscore why experienced legal assistance is critical in lawsuits. Often, as here, cases turn on detailed questions of legal procedure. Without proper counsel, this developer may have given up after losing in one court, perhaps because of a concern of mounting legal fees, or failed to present a meritorious argument. Yet its effective persistence ultimately saved it millions of dollars in delays and legal fees (when the inevitable next challenge was filed to a new or supplemental plan).