Channel Law Group

Channel Law Group is a respected California law firm focused on land use and environmental protection, known for advocating on behalf of communities impacted by unsafe development. Representing MERC, they filed an appeal on December 23, 2025 to stop the proposed McGroarty project until thorough safety reviews were completed. 

The firm is also actively litigating against the City of Los Angeles, alleging that the City approved development in severe fire hazard zones while disregarding state wildfire safety regulations. They cite 75 examples in a lawsuit filed December 23 in L.A. County Superior Court. 

Based on their experience, our attorneys believe MERC’s case is not only strong, but winnable. Click on any document title below to view the corresponding PDF. 

 — FILINGS & PRESENTATIONS —

Comment Letter and Submission of Expert Wildfire Report of David B. Shew (August 17, 2026 16 pages) — Requests that the City recognize the significant wildfire impacts identified by expert David Shew and reject the project’s “Less Than Significant” environmental findings. The City is urged to grant MERC’s appeal, set aside the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and require preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report before proceeding.

McGroarty CPC Presentation (June 22, 2026; 11 pages) — Requests MERC's appeal be granted and project approvals disapproved and for the City to set aside the Mitigated Negative Declaration.The city is further urged to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report before proceeding.

Appellant’s Response to the Appeal Recommendation Report (June 22, 2026; 10 pages) — The document is a legal and technical critique arguing that the City of Los Angeles must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed development due to substantial evidence of environmental and safety concerns.

The supplemental appeal justification letter (June 15, 2026; 142 pages) — A coalition of experts and the appellant firm challenge the City's approval of a residential project, citing violations of fire safety regulations, environmental impacts, and procedural errors, advocating for disapproval and environmental review.

Supplement to Appellant’s Comments and Submission of New Expert Evidence (June 15, 2026; 1,123 pages) — This letter provides copies of the reference materials cited in Scott Cashen’s Biological Resources Report, submitted with the June 15, 2026 Supplemental Appeal Justification.

Original Justifcation Appeal (December 23, 2025; 32 pages) — A detailed appeal challenges the City of Los Angeles' approval of a residential development project at 8100-8160 West McGroarty Street, citing non-compliance with fire safety regulations, environmental impacts, and inadequate environmental review.

  — Summary of Above Filings —

Comment Letter and Submission of Expert Wildfire Report of David B. Shew (August 17, 2026 16 pages) — MERC’s attorney submitted an expert wildfire report by retired CAL FIRE Staff Chief David Shew, who concludes that the proposed McGroarty development would have a significant environmental impact as currently designed.

Shew argues that the City’s Mitigated Negative Declaration relies on outdated wildfire assumptions and basic code compliance, while failing to adequately address today’s extreme wildfire conditions. His main concerns are:

• Fire risk: Current building/fire codes, sprinklers and landscaping do not adequately protect against ember-driven fires or the enormous hazardous debris generated by wildfire. 20260817 McGroarty CPC Comment Letter - Shew Report.pdf

• Roads and emergency access: Proposed road widths, turning radii and grades do not meet State wildfire requirements, and the proposed mitigation does not actually fix those deficiencies. 20260817 McGroarty CPC Comment Letter - Shew Report.pdf

• Evacuation: The City is relying on emergency/evacuation plans that were shown to be inadequate during the January 2025 fires. 20260817 McGroarty CPC Comment Letter - Shew Report.pdf

• Wildfire impacts: The report says the proposed measures are essentially “band-aid solutions” that do not adequately address current wildfire behavior. 20260817 McGroarty CPC Comment Letter - Shew Report.pdf

Bottom line: Shew’s expert opinion provides evidence that the project’s wildfire impacts cannot legitimately be classified as “less than significant.” MERC therefore asks the Planning Commission to grant the appeals, reject the project entitlements, set aside the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 

McGroarty CPC Presentation (June 22, 2026; 11 pages) — MERC’s presentation argues that the McGroarty project should be denied because both proposed access routes fail State wildfire-safety standards, including requirements for road width, grade, turning radius, and turnarounds. It also argues that the City failed to properly apply the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations and that the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration does not adequately analyze these wildfire risks.  

The presentation further emphasizes unrebutted biological concerns involving mountain lions, coast horned lizards, Crotch’s bumble bees, and oak woodland, and contends that the proposed mitigation is deferred or ineffective.

MERC’s requested action: Grant the appeals, disapprove the project approvals, set aside the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before the project can proceed. 

Appellant’s Response to the Appeal Recommendation Report (June 22, 2026; 10 pages) — MERC’s June 22 filing responds to the City Planning Department’s recommendation to deny MERC’s appeals and argues that the City’s report fails to rebut MERC’s expert evidence on wildfire safety and biological impacts. It maintains that the project’s two access routes remain non-compliant with State fire-safe standards for road width, grade, radius, and turnarounds, and that these deficiencies cannot be deferred to later Fire Department review.  

The filing also argues that the City failed to notify CAL FIRE as required, and that the MND does not analyze the project’s compliance with State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations. It further contends that the City’s biological rebuttal does not address the newer expert report identifying potential impacts to protected species, oak woodland, and other sensitive resources.  

Bottom line: MERC argues that the unresolved wildfire and biological evidence prevents the City from making the required project-approval findings and independently establishes the need for a full Environmental Impact Report. MERC asks the Commission to grant the appeals, disapprove the project approvals, set aside the MND, and require an EIR.

The supplemental appeal justification letter (June 15, 2026; 142 pages) — The appeal argues that the proposed McGroarty subdivision cannot legally be approved based on new expert evidence from a civil engineer and senior biologist. The engineer found that the project’s access roads fail state wildfire-safety requirements for width, grade, turning radius, and turnarounds, while the biologist identified significant deficiencies in the MND’s analysis and mitigation of wildlife, oak woodland, and other biological resources.

MERC argues that these unresolved issues provide substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impacts, meaning the City cannot rely on the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration and must prepare a full EIR. The appeal asks the Planning Commission to grant MERC’s appeals, deny the project approvals, set aside the MND, and require preparation of an EIR.