The city of Seal Beach has been considering its options since Dec. 20, when owners of the property known as the DWP site announced the Orange County Superior Court ruled to halt the city’s River’s End Project.
“The city is reviewing the judge’s ruling and considering its options,” said Quinn Barrow, Seal Beach city attorney. “As you know, the city has received funding (about $2 million in state grant money) to improve the First Street beach parking lot and the portion of the San Gabriel River bike path that runs through the city for approximately 3.4 miles.”
Barrow said the city could appeal the decision, clarify the project description and environmental analysis in accord with the court’s order, reconsider the project, or reach a settlement with Bay City Partners, the property owners.
The River’s End Project would include improvements to the bike path along the San Gabriel River. It is related to the controversy between the city and Bay City Partners over the property owners’ plans to develop the former Los Angeles Department of Water and Power plant, which was demolished in the mid-1960s.
The DWP project site includes 10.69 acres of vacant land between First Street on the East, the San Gabriel River on the West, Marina Drive on the North, and the city beach on the South. It is the last significantly-sized parcel of undeveloped coastal property in Seal Beach.
Bay City purchased the property from LADWP in 2003, and has been trying to develop it since.
According to Edward Selich, project development manager for Bay City Partners, the action was filed against Seal Beach because the city failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, the state law enacted in 1970 to protect environmental resources, when it approved the city project.
“Bay City Partners argued the city violated CEQA because the city wrongly and repeatedly misrepresented to the public in its environmental documents that the city had complete control over the entire River’s End Project site,” Selich said.
Selich said the property owners have offered to donate the portion of the land the city needs for its project as soon as the city and the California Coastal Commission approve its plans to develop the DWP site. The offer was made while the city started to begin the process to take the property through the eminent domain process. To do so, the city would have to pay the property owners fair market value for the land.
Bay City Partners said the city’s offering price for the portion of land within the city project was far too low.
The California Coastal Commission also recently rejected the city’s application for a Coastal Development Permit for the same reasons expressed by the courts in favor of Bay City Partners.
Barrow described the city’s initial view of the court’s decision:
“Based upon the analysis and study of the potential environmental impacts of the project, the (Seal Beach) City Council issued a mitigated negative declaration. Under CEQA, an MND provides that all potential environmental impacts of a project can be mitigated to an insignificant level.”
According to Barrow, Bay City Partners’ lawsuit claimed the city should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report to analyze impacts such as traffic, water management and storage of hazardous waste.
“Bay City Partners also claimed that the city’s description of the project is inadequate because it did not state that the city has site control over the access road to the first street parking lot and the portion of the bike path that is on the property owned by Bay City Partners,” Barrow said. “(Their) attorney argued in court that (the property owner) could close the bike path and force a re-routing of the bike path.”
Selich said Bay City Partners had no plans to close the access path to the River’s End staging area, but that it is merely exercising its right as owners of the property.
“The judge ruled against Bay City Partners on all grounds, with one exception: the judge found that the project description should have included the fact that a portion of the bike path is owned by Bay City Partners and (it) could prevent the public from using the bike path,” Barrow said. “The judge indicated the city should evaluate any potential impacts resulting from a change in the path. The judge ordered the parties to return to court in March to determine whether the city has complied with the court’s ruling.
“The parties have been engaged in settlement discussions since 2009 and are hopeful that a settlement can be reached,” Barrow said.
“Bay City Partners is continuing discussions with the city and is hopeful that a mutual solution can be found to end all litigation which is costing both BCP and the taxpayers of Seal Beach significant sums,” Selich said.
He said the costs to the city may include compensation to the property’s owners.
He said the property owners are willing to give the land to the city at no cost if Bay City Partners is granted its development application.
“With the eminent domain trial set for March 2011, the legal bills continue to mount, and time is running out for the city to resolve this issue.”
