A state appeals panel has rejected an attempt to restart a big redevelopment project in the city of Irvine, agreeing with opponents of the project that the city hasn’t done the proper analysis under state law to demonstrate the project won’t emit too much so-called “greenhouse gases.”
On Feb. 6, a three-justice panel of the California Fourth District Appellate Court, Division Three, in Orange County, ruled in favor of Hale Holdings, the managing member of a group known as the IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development, in their dispute with the city.
Hale spoke on behalf of a number of existing Irvine business owners, who objected to the city’s approval of the so-called Gemdale project. Under the plan, the developer, identified as Gemdale 2400 Barranca Holdings LLC, planned to redevelop a 4.95 acre parcel in the so-called Irvine Business Complex (IBC), which measures 2,800 acres overall.
Fourth District Appellate Justice Eileen C. Moore
| courts.ca.gov/
The IBC was created in the 1970s, with the goal of creating an economic and employment base for the city. The IBC currently hosts a large amount of office space, with industrial and warehouse uses and “scattered residential” developments, according to the court decision.
In 2010, the city established a “vision plan” for the site, “with the overall goal of creating a mixed-use community with urban neighborhoods” to “address increased housing demand in the IBC.”
In its project, Gemdale planned to demolish an existing two-story building measuring about 70,000 square feet on its site, and replace it with a 275,000-square-foot office complex, including five- and six-story office buildings and a seven-story parking garage.
The project has drawn strong opposition from existing business owners and neighboring property owners who complain the project would tower over the surrounding properties and generate much larger amounts of traffic on streets around the IBC.
The city approved the project over those objections, and the opponents, led by Hale, filed suit.
In their lawsuit, they primarily alleged the city didn’t properly take into consideration the impact of the traffic increases and failed to show the project wouldn’t have a significant environmental impact in keeping with California law and the city’s so-called program environmental impact report (2010 PIER), which the city had prepared in 2010 to ensure the project complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Under the 2010 PIER, the city set the goal of completing its vision for the IBC by 2030 without raising emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called “greenhouse gases,” blamed for causing climate change, beyond the levels measured for the IBC in 2008.
At Orange County Superior Court, Judge Kirk Nakamura sided with the objectors, and vacated the city’s approval of the Gemdale project.
The city then appealed.
But at the Fourth District, justices also applied the brakes to the city’s approval.
Justices disagreed with the lower court’s determination that the city had not presented enough evidence to back its determination that the Gemdale project wouldn’t significantly impact traffic burdens in the area.
But the justices said they agreed the city fell short in presenting evidence that the project complied with emissions goals under the 2010 PIER and the CEQA law.
“Simply put, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the City’s finding that the Gemdale project’s greenhouse gas emissions are consistent with the 2010 PEIR’s target of net zero emissions,” the justices wrote. “Rather, it is unclear what effect the Gemdale project will have on the IBC’s ability to achieve net zero emissions.
“To demonstrate the Gemdale project is within the scope of the 2010 PEIR’s emissions plan, the City must analyze the Gemdale project’s emissions within the context of present and future development in the IBC. The analysis must show its emissions will not prevent the IBC from achieving its goal of net zero emissions at full buildout.”
The justices particularly noted internal communications between the city and its consultants revealed the consultants expressed concern over emissions from “mobile source emissions” associated with the project. Such “mobile source emissions” are typically associated with emissions from cars and other motor vehicles.
The justices said the city’s analysis doesn’t do enough to eliminate a “reasonable possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment,” under the city’s 2010 PEIR and the California air quality law.
The justices upheld Nakamura’s ruling vacating the approval, but did not direct the city to conduct any particular environmental review of the project.
Rather, they said they would “leave it in City’s discretion to choose an allowable method of analysis under the CEQA” (sic.)
The opinion was authored by Acting Presiding Justice Eileen C. Moore. Justices Thomas M. Goethals and Thomas A. Delaney concurred in the decision.
The city of Irvine was represented by attorneys Jeffrey T. Melching, Peter J. Howell and Travis Van Ligten, of Rutan & Tucker, of Irvine.
Gemdale has been represented by attorneys Tim Paone, Andrew B. Sabey and James M. Purvis, of Cox Castle & Nicholson, of Irvine.
And Hale Holdings has been represented by attorneys Edmond M. Connor, Matthew J. Fletcher and Douglas A. Hedenkamp, of Connor, Fletcher & Hedenkamp, of Irvine.