The saga of Playa Vista, one of the most debated and litigated developments in Los Angeles history, took another twist this week when an appellate court ruled that the city erred in approving a portion of the project's environmental review.
The decision means that the city will have to rewrite part of the voluminous environmental impact report for the project, even though a large portion of it has already been built. But Playa Vista critics and backers disputed the long-term significance of the ruling.
Playa Vista, which is south of Marina del Rey, has been the subject of nearly three decades of battles. Critics fought unsuccessfully to block the project, saying the ecologically sensitive land should remain open space.
Planned for about 13,000 residents, Playa Vista is now home to about 4,000 people and some commercial development. It caught the attention of urban planners in part because the development's relatively high density -- with condominiums, apartments, town homes and underground parking -- is seen by some as a model for future growth in Los Angeles and elsewhere.
According to the ruling, released Wednesday, city officials violated the state Environmental Quality Act in 2001 when they signed off on the developer's plan for dealing with methane gas deposits under thousands of homes, condos and office units on one of the last open stretches on the Westside.
The ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal came in a suit filed by a coalition of environmentalists fighting the development. The lawsuit contended that the methane gas safety measures are inadequate and unproven, and could adversely affect the environment.
But just what, exactly, the ruling means to the project's future -- as well as to the existing buildings the ruling covers -- is unclear, though the plaintiffs clearly saw it as a victory.
"This ... sends a clear message that justice will prevail when citizen perseverance is supported by sound science," said Sabrina Venskus, the lead lawyer for the coalition. "I'm hopeful that the new mayor and city councilpersons will avail themselves of the facts and scientific evidence and utilize this opportunity to protect the public and the environment."
Venskus may believe the ruling was clear, but the city attorney's office didn't appear to agree with that assessment Wednesday.
"We're trying to figure out what the court said and what the legal options are," spokesman Frank Mateljan said. "It is a little dense in the language. We're still unpacking it."
