96.5 F
San Fernando
Thursday, Mar 28, 2024

Ikea Heats Up Climate Fight

In the battle between developers and groups trying to slow them down, a new weapon is emerging – global warming. And it’s being put to the test in Burbank. Citizens Advocating Rational Development, a Woodland Hills environmental group, filed a lawsuit in L.A. Superior Court last month that seeks to halt construction of the country’s largest Ikea on grounds the project did not undergo sufficient review to assess and reduce its impact on global warming. The 470,000-square-foot Ikea was approved by the city in March, but the suit alleges that the project’s environmental impact report is “fatally flawed,” and has “inadequate analysis of air quality, greenhouse emissions and climate change.” The suit even claims that insufficient analysis was done over the development’s impact on the Sierra Nevada snowpack. Nick Green, founder and president of the group, said he didn’t seek out Burbank or Ikea specifically, but wanted to find a local development to raise his concerns over the global issue. “We are realistic enough to understand that we will not halt, nor do we even want to halt, all development,” he told the Business Journal in an email. “What we want is discussion and disclosure.” The lawsuit names Burbank and Ikea Property Inc., the U.S. property division of the Swedish retailer, owned by Ingka Holding B.V. of Leiden, Netherlands as defendants. Joseph Roth, U.S. spokesman for the retailer, said any accusation that Ikea is not concerned with environmental impact is bogus and many of the lawsuit claims are false. “We’re a company that is genuinely recognized as being environmentally conscious,” he said. “We’re not entirely sure why we were singled out, but we certainly expect to open our new store in Burbank.” The suit comes following a failed effort last year by business groups to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which they claim has become a tool of environmentalists, neighborhood groups and even rival developers to stop worthy projects. Senate President Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, wrote a major overhaul of CEQA that would have expedited the environmental impact report (EIR) review process, encouraged infill development to limit urban sprawl and promoted bike lanes and other transportation projects to limit car use. But Steinberg abandoned the bill. Gary Toebben, chief executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, said that getting projects through the EIR review process is hard enough without having to deal with lawsuits based on global warming. “It’s a very challenging process, and one finds it hard to imagine that it will get any easier,” said Toebben, who acknowledged not having heard of such lawsuits previously. Legislative challenges CEQA requires local government agencies to confirm that developments either pose no threat to the environment or include measures to mitigate the issues. It also allows projects to proceed despite environmental damage if the governments decide benefits such as job creation “override” the damage. However, environmental groups and other opponents to specific projects can sue on grounds that an analysis is incomplete or that mitigation measures are inadequate. The lawsuits may not always win, but they can often delay projects, force developers to scale back proposals, or even have a project shuttered. Global warming was included in the CEQA review process following the passage of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The bill set guidelines for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state. In 2010, agencies were required to analyze greenhouse gas emissions during CEQA reviews, though it has been tough to address in practice as no specific thresholds have been adopted statewide. In fact, CEQA guidelines suggest local agencies “develop and publish thresholds of significance” for use as part of the review process. “It’s mandatory in CEQA that greenhouses gases are addressed, and although some specific thresholds and guidelines have been established, there is no one approach that has been officially adopted statewide,” said Jonathan Riker, an attorney with CA Land Use Professionals LLP, an L.A. firm focused on land use and environmental concerns. “And courts tend to be deferential to government agency decisions, especially when an environmental impact report is being prepared.” While the majority of CEQA lawsuits still focus on local issues such as traffic mitigation, global warming has been an issue for a few years. “It is fairly new, but it has been growing,” Riker said. “I don’t think it’s necessarily the most useful or impactful, but it is a weapon.” In the Bay Area, a legal battle has been waging for several years over CEQA and its guidelines related to global warming. In 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District voted to require EIRs completed for projects in the region to consider global emissions and set specific emission thresholds depending on the project. Projects could proceed if they exceeded the limits but local governments would have to rule the project benefits override the environmental damage. The California Building Industry Association challenged the thresholds, claiming that they were too stringent and would deter developers from proposing urban infill projects and prompt more suburban development. Last year, a state appeals court sided with the air quality district, upholding the specific thresholds. Dave Vintze, air quality planning manager with the air management district, said that it would be difficult to adopt specific thresholds statewide. “It would be nice if the state had a statewide threshold, but it may not be appropriate to have a one-size-fits-all threshold,” he said. “We have terrific public transportation here with BART and it may be harder to institute similar thresholds in Fresno. There is some guidance from the state, but it’s more about methodology. They still fall short on what specific thresholds should be.” John Buse is senior attorney and legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity, a Tucson, Ariz. environmental group that has challenged developments around the country, including the Newhall Ranch development in the Santa Clarita Valley. He said the group has filed some 20 lawsuits nationwide against projects that have cited global warming – not including Newhall Ranch, which focused on local environmental issues. But he admitted the success rate is low. “Is it a tool like traffic and other localized issues? No,” he said. “It’s a hard argument to win,” he said. “It probably won’t have the power to stop things altogether, but it can force some reconsideration.” Abundant natural light Ikea has been working for more than a year on getting the larger store built at 805 S. San Fernando Road. It’s less than a mile south of the existing Ikea near the Burbank Town Center mall, which is half the size. Roth said building permits are currently being processed and the company plans to open the outlet by 2016, though it has not yet begun demolition on the more than 20 structures on the land, including office, industrial and residential buildings. Green said his group was founded in the last year with the intent to combat global warming and “force developers and cities to treat climate change as the very serious issue it is.” He declined to discuss membership, saying members requested anonymity due to possible neighborhood problems if they go counter to other local opinions. But he did acknowledge one was from Burbank. This is not the first time Green and his group has voiced concerns over the Ikea project. During the site’s EIR process, Green submitted a letter outlining his concerns about the development’s impact on climate change. In response, Meridian Consultants LLC, the Westlake Village firm that prepared the EIR, cited various features of the project that were included to address the emission of greenhouse gases, including an efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system, abundant natural lighting, rechargeable electric forklifts and the installation of shade trees. Meridian, which is not named in the lawsuit, did not respond to calls for comment. But Burbank City Attorney Amy Albano said the city stands by the EIR process. “We don’t agree with their claims. We believe our EIR is more than adequate and we believe it won’t be susceptible to a substantial challenge from these petitioners,” she said. “We feel that we gave a very thorough response to their letter.” Green disagrees, and doesn’t mince words over his feelings on the shortcomings of city officials. “Not only are these local, and frankly, not very scientifically sophisticated, city councils deciding these issues, but they are allowed to virtually ignore global warming and climate change,” he said. Roth, the Ikea spokesman, strongly disagreed, charging the lawsuit itself was sloppily prepared. He noted it alleges that the “EIR does not discuss any requirements that the project adopt energy saving techniques and fixtures, nor is there any discussion of potential solar energy facilities.” In fact, Roth said the store will feature roughly 4,000 solar panels capable of generating 1 megawatt of electricity, in addition to all exterior LED lighting, which uses less power than regular lights. The store also will have space for 86 bicycle parking spaces and electric vehicle charging stations. “The process was very solid and sound,” Roth said. “We’re confident in the integrity of the project. It was a very thorough process with every issue raised and addressed.” Gary Rotkop, the L.A. attorney who is representing the environmental group, did not respond to requests for comment. Neither the city nor Ikea has filed an official response yet to the lawsuit nor have any hearings been scheduled. Minimal process The project is expected to generate 400 jobs and more during construction. Toebben from the L.A. Chamber said the Ikea store is the kind of development the area needs, and “absurd” concerns over the Sierra snowpack should not delay or scale it back. “There is no end to the number of consequences to residents of California who have and want jobs if a lawsuit of this type would prevail. It goes way beyond the average CEQA lawsuit,” he said. “We all want a better environment, but most of us want jobs as well.” But Buse from the Center for Biological Diversity said lawsuits like the one in Burbank aren’t all about winning. Instead, he thinks it’s an important step toward getting serious consideration in the state capital. “Right now, the process is minimal and that has to change,” he said. “I think we’ll continue to see these types of suits until environmental review will include more substantial and specific review of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Featured Articles

Related Articles