Maximum impacts: development battles hinge on environmental reports.

IT'S the political tool of choice, the three-letter word that strikes fear in the hearts of developers--and spells opportunity for anyone trying to thwart their ambitions.

Whether it's the LAX modernization, a Westwood mixed-used project of the apartment building around the corner, the EIR has become the focal point for opponents of development in Los Angeles. Politicians, labor unions--even owners of competing developments--have waded into the minutiae of environmental impact reports, recognizing them as the most effective method of altering, slowing or putting a halt altogether to a planned development.

"EIRs have emerged as the road map to defeat a project," said Ray Pearl, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Southern California.

Ultimately, the prominence of EIRs has given power to politicians to determine which projects will go forward and which ones wither on the vine.

"The more complicated this system has become, the more it gives power to the decision makers," said Roxana Tynan, a former Los Angeles City Council deputy now in charge of accountable development for the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy.

EIRs first arrived through establishment of the California Environmental Quality Act in 1970. They were originally intended as a means to brief local officials about the environmental impacts of a project and offer ways to minimize them. But they turned into major political battlegrounds.

Backed by a series of court decisions in their favor, project opponents have become increasingly sophisticated in how they weigh in with their demands and agendas, forcing delays in the EIR process and ultimately changes in projects.

It often takes a year or more for developers and public works bosses to steer their projects through the E|R process--if they get through at all.

In the city of Los Angeles, the process is infused with politics from the start. Members of the City Council have "district prerogative," which typically provides wide latitude to influence projects in the areas they represent.

Just recently, L.A. City Councilman Jack Weiss asked L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo to look into whether a portion of the EIR for Casden Properties LLC's proposed mixed-use project in Westwood should be redone to take into account possible impacts of a proposed FBI building a mile away. But the Casden proposal was already in the works for two years; the FBI only proposed its project two months ago and even if approved, it won't be up for years.

"All I've done is send a letter to the director of city planning and the city attorney asking them whether CEQA requires some sort of examination or discussion of the FBI building in the Casden EIR," said Weiss, who after two years of neutrality, came out against the project in December 2003. He has since shifted his stance to conditional support "with concerns."

Lengthy documents

The problem is not in the number of EIRs, which tend to fluctuate with the overall development market. Since 1994, there have been no more than 90 filed in L.A. County in any given year, according to a state tracking database.

But individual EIRs have mushroomed from 10- or 20-page dossiers into huge multi-volume reports hundreds of pages long.

"I just went back the other day to look at one of the first EIRs I worked on, back in the late 1970s. It was seven pages long and was regarded as complete. Now, that same EIR would easily run 300 pages, and that's not including several hundred more pages of technical appendices," said Jocelyn Niebur Thompson, an L.A.-based land use attorney. "As each new court case comes out, it gets layered into the EIR process for all future EIRs."

The result can be mind-boggling. The EIR for L.A. Mayor James Hahn's proposed $9 billion overhaul of Los Angeles International Airport, released in April, weighed in at 16 volumes with a total of more than 10,000 pages. Over 10 years, airport officials have spent $54 million preparing environmental documentation for airport overhaul proposals.

Objections to EIRs have greatly intensified over the last couple of years. One factor is the build-out of the Los Angeles area, which has confined development to mainly infill projects that tend to bump up against already crowded neighborhoods.

In addition, new opponents have joined the EIR battles, pooling their resources to mount challenges or extract concessions from developers. Mostly, these have been neighborhood, environmental and labor groups.

Opposition has also come from developers of competing projects. Last year, owners of the Glendale Galleria filed a lawsuit challenging the EIR of the Americana at Brand mixed-use project by Caruso Affiliated. General Growth has said the Galleria could lose up to $4 million a year if the Caruso project goes forward.

"CEQA was designed to be a shield to protect the environment and it has been turned into a sword used to attack competing projects." said Rick Moses, senior vice president and chief development officer of Caruso Affiliated.

Many community activists, though, see EIRs as having a positive influence.

"The EIR is really one of the few tools--and sometimes the only one--to express concerns about a project," said Sandy Brown, president of the Holmby-Westwood Homeowners Association. "It also offers a way for developers to create a project with less impact on the community. And if that means some projects need to be scaled back, so be it."

Delaying mechanism

But developers argue that the EIR has morphed into a monstrosity that drains time and money. They can add months and even years to a project, or scare off lenders and cause the entire process to collapse.

"Often there's a narrow window in the market cycle to line up the approvals and financing for a project. If you're forced outside that window, the project may no longer pencil out," said Larry Kosmont, an L.A.-based economic development consultant.

The other major problem is the inherent unpredictability of the EIR process.

"You never know who is going to come out of the woodwork to challenge an EIR," said Vcena Persaud-Berlinger, a land use attorney in Century City. "That's why the EIR process is so effective, since anyone can lodge an environmental comment into the administrative process."

In this regard, California is somewhat unusual. According to a 1995 study led by John Landis, then associate professor of city and regional planning at the University of California Berkeley, more lawsuits were filed challenging EIRs in California in the late 1980s than any other state besides New York. California also requires EIRs for most major private sector projects, while most other states only require them for public sector projects, the study said.

Since that study, labor unions have become involved, ostensibly to ensure quality developments so that communities would welcome similar projects in the future.

Mark Joseph, a labor attorney with Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo in San Francisco, traced the change to environmentally unsound projects that were built in the late 1980s and cost the area union jobs.

"The community lost out and unions lost the opportunity for future work. That's when we decided to become participants in the environmental review process," he said.

But developers and their allies say EIRs are simply an easy way for unions to extract wage and other concessions. "EIRs have nothing to do with labor's agenda in Los Angeles and to use it as anything else is what makes it more difficult to provide housing in the region," Pearl said.

Earlier this year, labor unions allied with a local environmental group reached an agreement with Paramount Petroleum Corp. that included both emissions reductions and an apprentice-training program for the retooling of its refinery in Paramount.

Joseph said labor unions plat] to craft more such agreements on a wide variety of projects. And, in each case, the EIR will likely be the entry point for those discussions.

Pre-emptive EIRs

With the potential for snags, some developers are resorting to full EIRs even when they don't have to. Under reforms enacted in 1993, if a developer can demonstrate that a project can be mitigated below a threshold of "substantial environmental impact," an EIR is not necessary.

"The trouble is, even if you don't have to do an EIR, a project opponent will file a challenge and get a judge to order an EIR." Persaud-Berlinger said. "That's why some of my clients are choosing to take the time and the money and do an EIR up front."

The 1993 reforms were supposed to rein in abuses of the EIR process. But they haven't had a dramatic effect. With the economy back in swing and a Republican governor in Sacramento, industry groups axe pushing for more reforms.

Even EIR defenders admit there's room for reform.

"It would be wise for the environmental community to look at some changes in the law that would make the EIR process more swift and certain for infill development," said Fred Keeley, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League. In exchange, Keeley said, there should be some "urban growth boundaries" that preserve open space and prevent urban sprawl.

Back in 1995, Landis' study presented several reform options, including the more widespread use of "master EIRs." With these, a community would enact environmental impact standards for all future projects: as long its a particular project met those standards, it would need only cursory environmental review.

L.A. City Councilman Ed Reyes, who chairs the council's planning and land use management committee, says he favors a similar type of reform..

"The key issue for me is predictability," Reyes said. "We have to determine where we want housing to go, where we want the jobs to go and where we want the commercial centers to go. Then, inside those areas, we must create an environment where individual projects axe treated in a predictable way so that the desired development can occur."

Profiting on EIRs

SINCE the enactment of the California Environmental Quality Act in 1970, the business of conducting environmental impact reports has grown from a standing start into a full-blown industry.

Los Angeles County is the base for dozens of companies whose core business is EIRs, while nearly every design and engineering company has sprouted a division to conduct the reviews.

Larger firms offer one-stop shopping for developers and public agencies while smaller firms tout the individualized attention they can give to a project.

Fueling the growth has been the increasing scrutiny of EIRs, not only by neighborhood groups but environmentalists, politicians and even labor leaders as they try to influence a proposed project. In the EIR, developers attempt to anticipate myriad objections.

Even if a project has a "negative declaration"--a determination that it doesn't need an EIR--developers will go ahead and conduct one to protect themselves against litigation.

"EIRs are the mother's milk of development in California," said Larry Kosmont, chief executive of L.A. real estate consulting firm Kosmont Partners Inc.

San Francisco-based Environmental Science Associates was founded in 1969 as one of the first firms in the state to focus on EIRs. It now has 150 employees, including 20 in Los Angeles, and annual revenues of $20 million. The firm is finalizing a $300,000 EIR for the Ambassador Hotel site, which Los Angeles Unified School District is trying to turn into a school.

"More money has been spent and the industry itself has grown, which means more professionals in the industry in general," said Wendy Lockwood, Environmental Science's Southern California regional director.

Major locally based players include Parsons Corp., Tetra Tech Inc. and Cotton Bridges Associates Inc., Planning Consultants Research, Envicom Corp., Psomas and Christopher A. Joseph & Associates.

Other outside companies with a strong local practice include Science Applications International Corp. in San Diego, Jones & Stokes Associates Inc. in Sacramento, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. of Cambridge, Mass., EIP Associates in Sacramento and the Planning Center in Costa Mesa.

Conducting EIRs is only a part of the overall industry of environmental consulting. Other areas include infrastructure design, engineering and hazardous waste cleanup.

EIRs cover a range of potential impacts, from pollution, traffic, endangered species, parking and noise to water supplies, available space and seismic concerns.

The firms employ scientists, project managers, planners, environmental analysts, geographical information system specialists, biologists and cultural resource specialists who focus on historical assessments of a property.

Traffic consultants count traffic using a wire that registers each vehicle that runs over it or a hand-held clicker for manual counts. Scientists can then use the counts and other data to gauge an emissions impact.

To build a multi-layered computer map, geographic information specialists use digital photographs, notes and global positioning satellite devices. The maps show vegetation, flood hazard areas, earthquake faults.

Biologist chart and photograph plants and animals for the creation of additional maps. For animals that emerge from hiding only at night, biologists have been known to leave bait attached to a trigger wire connected to a camera.

A large firm will have 20 or more people working solely on EIRs. In the case of San Francisco-based URS Corp., there is a staff of 200 people dedicated to environmental reviews (including 10 in L.A.).

The company conducts reviews in many areas, but it has a particular expertise in highway and transportation projects.

"We provide a broader range of services to clients all under one roof," said Frank Wein, URS's urban and environmental manager. "There are developers and public agencies that see that as an advantage. It's easier to manage."

Most groups have between 10 and 20 employees. It is not uncommon for sole proprietors to gain contracts and subcontract the specialized areas out.

"For the most part, you have a lot of specialty boutique firms," said Betsy Lindsay, owner of Irvine-based UltraSystems Environmental Inc., which oversaw the traffic, circulation and planning components of an EIR for the city of Burbank, which is rewriting the land-use portion of its general plan. "They capitalize in those topical areas. One firm generally just can't do it all, even if you are a large firm."

--David Greenberg

As Easy as E-I-R

WHEN developers propose a project, how do they know whether they'll have to conduct an environmental impact report?

It's often a very long story--one that can easily go on for months or even years and involve jargon and acronyms that become a language unto themselves.

The starting point is CEQA, otherwise known as the California Environmental Quality Act, which serves as the umbrella set of state regulations that determine whether an EIR is actually necessary.

The key determination is whether the work is deemed a "project," based on the standards established by CEQA. This includes developments that might have an impact on the environment and "may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps."

If it's not deemed a project, no further steps are required.

If it is a project, developers may still have an out. The local agency leading the process can determine that it is exempt under a variety of determinations. In fact, more projects are declared exempt than end up requiring a full EIR.

The California Legislature has provided blanket exemptions under certain circumstances (the repair of facilities in disaster areas, for example). Conversion of small structures is another category that often gets waivers.

Once a notice of exemption is filed, the process is complete.

For projects that do not qualify for an exemption, the lead agency has 30 days to determine through an initial study whether the project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If no such effects are found, the agency prepares a negative declaration, which also eliminates the need for an EIR. Negative declarations generally take 180 days and run between 30 and 70 pages.

There is also the possibility of a mitigated negative declaration. In this case, the agency has determined potential significant effects, but the project can be modified to make them insignificant.

For large projects, however, conducting a full environmental impact report is often unavoidable. The lead agency starts by consulting with other agencies on the scope of the environmental analysis to be done. This consultation period lasts 30 days.

Whoever proposes the project, whether it's a private party or a government entity, foots the bill. But usually, they also get to choose the firm that conducts the actual study.

EIRs vary greatly in cost and length, depending on the size of the project, potential for controversy and complexity of the environmental issues. On average, EIRs take from 12 to 18 months, with smaller, expedited projects getting done in six months.

The reports are generally in the 200-page range, with appendices for technical studies on such things as traffic and air quality pushing that number much higher. Costs start around $100,000, with median prices in the $250,000 to $500,000 range.

But that's neither the end of the process nor the costs.

This draft EIR is sent out for a 45-day review period, during which time agencies and the public may comment. The lead agency then holds a hearing where questions and concerns about the project and the EIR are aired. The developer submits answers to some of the questions, and if it's necessary, redoes portions of the EIR and the underlying project plan.

The final EIR is prepared and submitted for approvals from any other necessary bodies, such as a city council.

In order to approve the project, the lead agency must find that all significant impacts were mitigated as much as possible and unavoidable effects are offset due to social or economic advantages.

--Nicole Taylor