(310) 475-5700
Tyson Sohagi’s practice focuses upon environmental law, land use and planning law, the Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Public Trust Doctrine, and Election Law. Mr. Sohagi received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from UC Berkeley that assists with SLG’s review of issues involving complex legal and technical issues. He advises public clients on complex matters such as infrastructure projects (transmission lines, port facilities, airport facilities, intermodal and on dock railroad facilities, utility plants), mass transit fees, general plans and specific plans, specific development proposals, and other land use issues. Many of his projects have involved complicated issues pertaining to historic resources, water supply, sea water intrusion, groundwater, water quality, stormwater, wastewater, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, hazardous materials, noise, and geology. Mr. Sohagi also has substantial experience related to transportation analysis, including operational analysis involving airports (including internal airport circulation), intermodal railways facilities, development projects, construction work, county and city-wide programmatic analysis, as well as non-vehicular analysis including multi-modal analysis utilizing new Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metrics.
Mr. Sohagi has been involved in numerous litigation matters in the California Superior and Appellate Courts involving issues pertaining to CEQA compliance, Coastal Act compliance, zoning compliance, the Public Trust Doctrine, election law and ballot measures, hydrology and water quality, water supply, geology, traffic and circulation, historic and archaeological resources, and biological resources. Mr. Sohagi is also involved with the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, including preparation of several amicus briefs in the California Supreme Court and numerous publication requests.
LAX Landside Access Modernization Program EIR and Subsequent Litigation
As part of our long-standing role as special CEQA Counsel to Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), we reviewed the planning documents and associated EIR for the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Landside Access Modernization Program (LAMP), a multi-billion-dollar update to the ground transportation system at LAX, with an emphasis on providing alternative modes of transportation for accessing LAX. The project includes an Automated People Mover (an elevated and grade separated train system) designed to connect to (1) Metro’s 96th Street Connector Project and Green line extension, (2) Intermodal Transportation Facilities, and (3) a new Consolidated Rental Car facility. After the City certified the EIR in June 2017, a local parking shuttle operator challenged the certification on CEQA grounds. The Firm is currently representing the City and LAWA in this ongoing challenge.
CITY OF PASADENA
Hill at Colorado Hotel Project
We reviewed General Plan, Zoning, entitlements, and associated EIR for compliance with CEQA. The project involved a mixed-use development in a Transit Priority Area, and therefore exempt from specific CEQA analyses under SB 743. The project was also the first development project in the City to implement Pasadena’s new Alternative Transportation CEQA significance thresholds, which eliminated Level of Service and focused upon (1) Vehicle Miles Traveled, (2) VT Per Capita, (3) Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network, and (4) Proximity and Quality of Transit Network, and (5) Pedestrian Accessibility. Our firm also coordinated modifications to the project entitlements to address the concerns of the applicant and the City, including the allowances for multiple land uses and modifications to the conditions of approval.
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Waterfront Revitalization Project
Since 2008, The Sohagi Law Group has acted as outside legal counsel for the City of Redondo Beach on all land use and environmental matters, including CEQA and NEPA. Most recently, the firm has acted as outside counsel on a $300 million Waterfront Revitalization Project. The Waterfront Revitalization Project proposes approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial and recreational space on approximately 36 acres in the City’s Coastal Zone. SLG worked closely with the City and environmental consultants on all aspects of the project, including EIR review, entitlement, Coastal Act and public trust compliance, trustee/responsible agency coordination and public review procedures. Our firm also handled the litigation for this project involving challenges under CEQA, the Coastal Act, the Public Trust, and CEQA administrative appeal procedures.
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
South Bay Galleria Mixed Use Project
Review EIR for CEQA compliance on a 1.9 million square feet commercial/residential development (including 650 homes and 150 hotel rooms). The proposed project consists of modifications and additions to the existing 29.85-acre South Bay Galleria enclosed mall property in the City of Redondo Beach. The proposed project includes demolishing some existing structures and redesigning portions of the site by combining expanded retail and dining venues with open-air promenades, hotel, and residential development.
CITY OF SEASIDE
Campus Town Center Specific Plan
In December 2016, the City of Seaside entered into a Purchase and Sale agreement with the KB Bakewell Development Partnership to develop 122 acres on the former Fort Ord Army Base. This development is directly south of the California State University – Monterey Bay campus, and is designed as a pedestrian oriented mixed-use village with 1,485 housing units, 250 hotel rooms, 150,000 square feet of Retail, Dining, and Entertainment, and 50,000 sf of Office, Flex, Makerspace/Light Industrial. Our services include providing strategic legal advice and in-depth legal reviews of both the Specific Plan and associated EIR.
Recent Amicus Briefs
- Com v. City of Los Angeles (2nd App. Dist. Case No. B282319). Amicus brief filed on behalf of the California State Association of Counties.
- High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas. Successful publication request filed on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. (3rd App. Dist. Case No. C082315).
- Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina. Successful publication request filed on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. (2nd App. Dist. Case No. B279590)
- Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (3rd App Dist. Case No. C084872). Amicus brief filed on behalf of California State Association of Counties and the league of California Cities.
- Citizens Opposing A Dangerous Environment v. County of Kern
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach
- Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch)
- San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco
- South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada
- Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara
- Save The Plastic Bag Coalition v. City and County of San Francisco
Walters et al. v. City of Redondo Beach
(2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809
Successful defense at both the trial court and Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District of the City of Redondo Beach’s use of a Categorical Exemption and issuance of a conditional use permit sought by a private applicant for a proposed carwash. This litigation involved allegations associated with noise, traffic, vehicular safety, air quality, water supply, and due process.
Building A Better Redondo v. City of Redondo Beach; CenterCal
(2018) Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS166124
Successful defense the City of Redondo Beach on 90% of the issues raised by petitioners related to the adequacy of the City’s CEQA Appeal Procedures, and the Environmental Impact Report/Entitlements for the Waterfront Development Project, a public/private project (with Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC) that includes the demolition of approximately 200,000 sq. ft. of existing structures in the City’s Harbor, infrastructure upgrades, and construction of approximately 500,000 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, creative office, specialty cinema, a public market hall, and a boutique hotel.
Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion, et al. v. City of Los Angeles (LAWA/SPAS)
(2013) Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 56-2014-00451038-CU-WM-OXN; Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six Case No. B272457
Successful defense of the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports in a case involving challenges to the Environmental Impact Report for the LAX Specific Plan Amendment Study, which analyzed multiple alternatives to LAX’s long term plans. The Court rejected all of petitioner’s arguments in a 118-page decision, including rejection of arguments related to the project description, alternatives analysis, cumulative analysis, recirculation, air quality analysis, traffic analysis, and safety.
Nuñez v. City of National City
(2011) San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-00078086-CU-MC-CTL
A lawsuit was filed by a local citizen and funded by the Institute for Justice (Koch Brothers) alleging that the City provided an insufficient level of detail in its agenda for the adoption of its Comprehensive Land Use Update (which included a new general plan, amended specific plan, and new zoning). Our office completed preliminary briefing on the Brown Act issues, however the City elected to make the case moot by re-agendizing, rescinding, and readopting the Planning Commission and the City Council’s actions.
Building a Better Redondo v. City of Redondo Beach, et al.
(2010) Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS124769; Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 Case No. B226499
The Firm defended the City in a writ alleging that the City failed to place certain Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments up to a vote of the people of Redondo Beach under a recently adopted City Charter amendment. The case involved the complicated interaction between City Charter requirements, election law, the Coastal Act, and planning and zoning law. The trial court ruled against the City and made erroneous statements of law that were inconsistent with numerous existing cases. While the Firm appealed the decision on behalf of the City, the Court of Appeal ruled that the issues had become moot. Despite this legal challenge, the Firm assisted the City in obtaining a certified LCP for the first time in the City’s history.
