In Stopthemilleniumhollywood v. City of Los Angeles, (2019) 2019 Cal.App.LEXIS 780, the Second District Court of Appeal held an environmental impact report (“EIR”) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) was invalid for lack of an “accurate, stable, and finite” project description and no unusual circumstances were present allowing otherwise.
Background
In 2013, the City of Los Angeles (“City”) certified an EIR and approved a master land use permit for a mixed-use project involving the preservation two existing buildings and the potential construction of other buildings on a 4.47-acre lot (“Project”). The Project description provided at least three possible build-out scenarios – a concept plan, a residential scenario, and a commercial scenario—and without identifying a course of action in order to “analyze the greatest possible impact on each environmental issue area.” In doing so, the EIR detailed “the most intense impacts from each scenario [and] represent[ed] the greatest environmental impacts permitted for any development scenario for the Project.” Stopthemilleniumhollywood and other parties filed a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, that the Project description was vague to the point that it precluded informed decision making and informed public comment.
The trial court held in favor of Stopthemilleniumhollywood and found that the Project description only provided “a blurred view of the Project” where it did not inform the public as to the number of buildings or towers to be built, where they would be located, or what use they would incorporate. Both the City and Stopthemilleniumhollywood appealed on multiple grounds.
Appellate Court Holding
Reviewing de novo, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court holding that the Project description was not accurate, stable, or finite as required by CEQA. Where the Project description was at the “heart of the EIR process in this case,” the Appellate Court declined to address any other contentions raised by parties, including those related to the EIR’s transportation, traffic, and seismic impacts.
The Appellate Court, relying on County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, held “an accurate, stable and finite project description [is] the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” Here, the Project description was “inconsistent” for failing to identify a preferred scenario and “fail[ed] to describe the siting, size, mass, [and] appearance of any building proposed to be built at the Project site.” As such, it failed to provide decision-makers or the public with any “design features” or “final development scenario” to evaluate in the decision-making process.
The Appellate Court also held that there were no “unusual circumstances” that made “the nature and timing of the [Project] unknown or unknowable nor was there any planned supplemental environmental review, any conditions creating uncertainty, or any reason the Project developer could not be more specific about the Project details,” as was the case in Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036. Here, the Project developer failed to provide sufficient detail or any explanation for its lack of clarity in the Project description. The Appellate Court noted this was particularly problematic to the EIR where earlier Project proposals “clearly described what it proposed to build.”
The Appellate Court distinguished in this case from South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, where the project description was not “curtailed, enigmatic, or unstable” despite failing to specify if the project’s buildings would be used predominantly for office space or residential uses. There, the project description included “site plans, illustrative massing, building elevations, cross-sections, and representative floor plans” for both use options and was therefore sufficient. Here, the Appellate Court held “the technical characteristics of the construction project—such as was provided in South of Market—were not provided here. The Draft EIR did not contain site plans, cross-sections, building elevations, or illustrative massing to show what buildings would be built, where they would be sited, what they would look like, and how many there would be.”
Finally, the Appellate Court declined to address remaining arguments related to the traffic, transportation, and seismic impacts because the Project description was fatally defective. Citing two non-CEQA cases, the Court held it was “not required to address every one of the parties’ respective arguments or express every ground for rejecting every contention advanced by every party.”
The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s holding in favor of Stopthemilleniumhollywood and awarded costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
Environmental documents aimed at preserving a wide range of development options for a project site must be sufficiently detailed. Absent unusual circumstances, failure to present technical characteristics in a project proposal, and instead presenting concepts and impact maximums, is an obstacle to public participation and an informed decision-making process and, typically, a violation of CEQA. If you wish to present your decision-makers with multiple variations of a project, ensure that the EIR provides specificity—both in description as well as illustration—of the options.
Questions
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office, or the attorney with whom you typically consult.
Mona Ebrahimi
mebrahimi@kmtg.com | 916.321.4597
Olivia Clark
oclark@kmtg.com | 916.321.4290