While lawyers have been busy hashing out a final agreement for DreamWorks SKG to establish its studio facilities at Playa Vista, two lawsuits brought by environmentalists are quietly moving forward.
On Nov. 9, lawyers for the Army Corps of Engineers filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after a U.S. District Court ruling that nullifies an Army Corps permit for the filling of 16 acres of wetlands, scattered throughout the 1,087-acre site.
In June, District Court Judge Ronald Lew ruled that the Army Corps erred in issuing permits allowing development on federally designated wetlands without conducting a full environmental impact report. The Army Corps had the option of going through with the environmental review which would take about two years but instead opted to appeal the decision. Developers Playa Capital LLC also filed a brief appealing the decision in September.
Lew ordered a halt to work on the 16 acres of wetlands, including an area west of Lincoln Boulevard, adjacent to one of the largest federally protected saltwater wetlands in Los Angeles. The developers had planned to build an urban runoff collection basin there.
The developers have since created an interim plan to build a basin east of Lincoln, in an area originally slated for housing units.
Gordon Hamilton, the Playa Vista project coordinator for the City Planning Department, said that the new proposal is under consideration by the city. Without city approval for the new basin, Playa Capital has clearance to build approximately 700 of the planned 3,246 units, Hamilton said. Playa Capital has stated that it intends to have between 500 and 800 units open by 2000.
The Wetland Action Network (WAN), the environmental group that originally brought the case against the developers, also is appealing Lew’s ruling, in an effort to broaden the scope of the decision. The Ninth Circuit Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the spring.
Separately, a Nov. 23 pretrial hearing has been scheduled in a second environmental case, based on the Endangered Species Act. In the case, environmentalists are arguing that there are endangered species on the site, and that the federal government failed to conduct assessments to ensure that they are not threatened by the development.
The case was first filed in January 1998. WAN has filed a motion for summary judgment, which will be considered during the hearing.
