Environmental & Land Use
Chatten-Brown & Carstens has substantial expertise in the area of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has also done considerable work under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Chatten-Brown & Carstens regularly advises clients regarding land use proposals and other projects subject to CEQA to ensure that any environmental impacts they would cause are sufficiently mitigated to the extent feasible. In some cases where it is not possible to mitigate impacts, the firm has been able to help its clients work with the project proponent to locate the project elsewhere, or develop a different project proposal with fewer impacts. Recently, Chatten-Brown & Carstens has particularly focused on use of these laws to address the problems of controlling greenhouse gases and climate change.
Chatten-Brown & Carstens also represents clients seeking to enforce state planning laws, the Subdivision Map Act, and municipal and county codes, usually with regard to proposed developments.
Examples of our work in environmental law and land use law include:- Representing the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners’ Coalition, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, Inc., and the Coalition for Clean Air, Inc., in a CEQA challenge to the Port of Los Angeles’ approval of a significant expansion of dock capacity for China Shipping Company without conducting environmental review. Petitioners were able to settle the litigation so that the Port committed to pay $50 million over five years for mitigation of air quality, traffic, and aesthetic impacts from terminal expansion in exchange for the right to operate the first phase of the terminal before completion of the new EIR. Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342.
- Using CEQA as an important tool for forcing consideration of alternatives, Chatten-Brown & Carstens played a key role in persuading three developers to become “willing sellers” to the State, so that now two State Parks are located along the Los Angeles River where large industrial complexes were proposed, and a substantial amount of acreage was added to the Baldwin Hills State Park The Firm represented Friends of the Los Angeles River, Coalition for Clean Air, Anahuak Soccer Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing an industrial and commercial development by Lennar Corporation at the Taylor Yards, which is now the Rio De Los Angeles State Park. The Firm represented the Friends of the Los Angeles River, Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Society of Los Angeles, Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles, Environmental Defense, Latino Urban Forum, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Renaissance Corporation in opposing a variance and site plan review application for an industrial warehouse project in an area of Chinatown in Los Angeles referred to as the Cornfields and Riverstation, which is now the Los Angeles State Historic Park. The Firm represented the Blair Hills Residents Association, in opposing a large residential development. Because we were successful in delaying commencement of the project, the State was able to use Proposition 12 funds to acquire the 65 acres for addition to the State Park in Baldwin Hills.
- The Firm represented the City of South Pasadena in opposing the extension of the 710 Freeway through the City. Jan Chatten-Brown was part of a “team” of consultants for the City, and the one primarily responsible for development of the air quality and environmental justice arguments against the freeway extension, and in support of a low build multi-modal alternative. After the Federal Highway Administration issued a Record of Decision to extend the 710 Freeway, the firm joined with other counsel in challenging the approval on NEPA, Clean Air Act, and historic preservation grounds. A federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against further development of the project, and the litigation is proceeding. Subsequently, the federal government indicated it would prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Later, the State withdrew the Notice of Determination for the EIR on the route, and agreed that this action nullifies the route. City of South Pasadena v. Slater (1999) 56 F.Supp.2d 1106.
