Waterfront developer court-ordered to pay $900,000 in legal fees to Redondo Beach

4 Responses

1. Hi, I know nothing about this development or developer, however, I am capable of recognizing biased reporting when I see It. No developer wants to violate the law (that would expose them as well as the city to litigation which equals delay and added cost). You forgot to mention the City Council approved the EIR then the project and the public process involved in that process. Your second paragraph talks about 2 other lawsuits and does not tie this litigation to the award of attorneys fees to the City. This case has nothing to do with the Project and its status or lack there of. It is about the City’s effoerts to recover attorneys costs. Try to do better at reporting the facts and less emphasis on interjecting your personal bias.

   Reply

   1. David,
      I disagree with your assessment. Developers don’t knowingly try to skirt CEQA or zoning? Of course they do….

      CenterCal clearly wanted to push the envelope on our zoning, the Coastal Act and CEQA. The residents, as required by CEQA, had highlighted all the disconnects and abuses of discretion. And yes, the Council, dominated by Chamber of Commerce plants were so biased and jaded they approved the project and EIR despite all the violations.

      However, unbiased parties, a judge and all Coastal Commissioners, sided with the residents’ assessments… The EIR violated CEQA. And the project violated local zoning and the Coastal Act. The judge ordered the city to rescind and correct the flawed EIR and to pull all approvals until the EIR was fixed and the project complied. The Coastal Commission unanimously agreed that the project represented “significant issues” with the City’s zoning and the Coastal Act… they voided the Coastal Development Permits. So CenterCal clearly tried to get away with “bending the rules” – and they got caught. Somehow two independent, unconflicted government parties found that the project and its EIR broke the law… but CenterCal couldn’t see it? Get real.

      So what did CenterCal do? They sued the City multiple times. And they personally sued the main opponents to their plan. CenterCal tried to mask their funding of the latter lawsuit by getting two residents to put their names on the lawsuit. When the judge forced the plaintiffs’ purported lawyer to disclose who paid him, the lawyer begrudgingly admitted CenterCal (through Redondo Waterfront LLC) was really backing the lawsuit. Even the judge thought that smelled – so he called the lawsuit a “sham” and the two residents who fronted the lawsuit “shills”. The same judge awarded the $900K in legal fees to the attorneys of the individuals CenterCal harassed with their bogus lawsuit.

      The City has not gotten legal fees – in fact, the lawsuits CenterCal filed against the City have not yet been resolved. And when the city held a three day event in the harbor, CenterCal filed yet another lawsuit.

      Clearly, CenterCal thought they could ram their mall down our throats and when they saw it wasn’t going to happen they filed vindictive lawsuits that continue to delay waterfront revitalization today.

      Reply

   2. Actually David, your totally off base and incorrect. As the recipient of $378,000 of the $900,000 (the one who was maliciously sued from CenterCal, through shills and and shams, I can tell you multiple illegal actions on their part. For instance, they lied about funding the personal lawsuit against us. Secondly, they lied about being compliant on the zoning. Both of which was struck down by a court. The EIR was found to be invalid and just because a Council votes for an EIR, doesn’t make the EIR valid. I will say that this is a badly written article, does not say what is truly going on and I, as a sitting councilman in Redondo and the one being sued and now reported on, wasn’t even called for a quote of clarification. That’s not good reporting!

      Reply

2. The $900K was for the attorneys of the individuals CenterCal sued. CenterCal’s lawsuits with the City have not been resolved yet.

   Reply