Light prevails in CenterCal CEQA suit
A model of CenterCal Properties’ proposed Waterfront redevelopment project. Photo
Judge rules City must re-study ramp, view and Lagoon impacts
CenterCal’s waterfront redevelopment plan was dealt another blow in court when a state judge ruled that the project’s Environmental Impact Report was incomplete in three major sections. As a result, the City of Redondo Beach will be required to annul its project certifications and entitlements and prepare new reports.
Superior Court Judge James Chalfant’s tentative ruling was issued on Friday, granting Building a Better Redondo a decision over the City of Redondo Beach and CenterCal subsidiary Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC in a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit.
But Jim Light, principal of BBR, isn’t declaring victory yet.
“It’s just another chink in the armor against the CenterCal project that we’ve been able to exploit,” Light said. “It’s a good ruling and yet another objective official pointing out that we were right, and the city’s processes are not producing products that would withstand outside scrutiny.”
Judge Chalfant agreed with BBR that the EIR document prepared by Redondo Beach staff and consultants did not properly address three issues: Health impacts from opening Seaside Lagoon to harbor waters; the circulation of safety information for the proposed boat ramp at King Harbor’s Mole B; and visual impacts from Czuleger Park.
A revamped Seaside Lagoon has long been chief among CenterCal’s plans for the new-look of the waterfront. CenterCal’s designs opened up the current saltwater beach pool to harbor waters. That design was, in part, a solution to concerns about where the existing lagoon would draw water from. Currently, Seaside Lagoon is filled with treated seawater outflow, used as coolant the AES power plant.
Opponents to the plan argued that the plan would risk exposing swimmers to polluted water. They also argued that harbor water testing documented in the EIR was insufficient. Chalfant agreed.
“It seems plain that visitors at the opened Seaside Lagoon will not be swimming in water that is cleaner from a public health perspective,” Chalfant wrote, calling the testing “incomplete and unsupported by scientific, protocol-based water sampling.”
Judge Chalfant also agreed with arguments that the City didn’t properly present information on the proposed boat ramp at Mole B, an outcropping at King Harbor’s north end, saying that a series of City-sponsored hearings were not enough to give the public a full understanding of the issues. However, he didn’t endorse BBR’s contention that the ramp would be unsafe.
“The fact that experts disagreed does not invalidate the City’s certification of the FEIR on this issue,” Chalfant wrote, citing precedent that decision-makers are allowed to weigh some testimony more than others. “There’s little doubt that there are navigational safety issues associated with the Mole B location for the Boat Ramp, but there also is little doubt that these issues have been exhaustively discussed by the City.”
While Chalfant found that the EIR presented evidence that interference with views from Czuleger Park were “less than significant” for most of the project, he agreed that the EIR addressed neither southern-facing views blocked by a planned hotel nor inconsistencies with the City’s Land Use Plan.
City Attorney Michael Webb felt comfortable with the ruling, given that the court dismissed the “vast majority” of issues raised in BBR’s argument, including those of boat slip loss, views from Harbor Drive, greenhouse gas emissions, and concerns regarding “paving over” Seaside Lagoon.
“The court held that on the vast majority of issues, the city met its obligations to analyze and publicly discuss environmental issues,” Webb said. “It will be interesting to see if the judgment is upheld on an almost-certain appeal by CenterCal.”
The City’s own CEQA appeal procedure ordinance was also upheld and declared lawful by Judge Chalfant, except for language that forced appellants to send notice to the project applicant by certified mail. That requirement was struck in Chalfant’s decision.
Webb feels it’s too soon to say whether or not the City Council will appeal the decision, but he stated that the Court’s decision should not financially impact Redondo Beach.
“CenterCal has continued to pay the City’s legal bills; this litigation has cost the City nothing, and therefore it should continue to cost the City nothing,” Webb said.
BBR attorney Frank Angel was pleased with the decision, though he was disappointed that not every argument was upheld by Judge Chalfant.
“You can’t win them all, right?” Angel said. “Overall, we won fair and square; the judge ordered the decertification of the EIR, a win that’s very substantive and very strong.”
Angel, however, couldn’t resist poking at CenterCal’s litigious tendencies.
“I’m going to warn the judge, that he might want to be careful; CenterCal might sue him, too.”
In August, the California Coastal Commission will make decisions on the merits of the project, the boat ramp, and Measure C.