The City of Redondo Beach was ordered to pay the law firm representing citizen-led group Building a Better Redondo $313,000 in legal expenses after an appellate court upheld BBR’s previous motion to place harbor zoning on a ballot for voter approval.
“I’ve been expecting BBR to prevail all along,” said BBR supporter and City Councilman Bill Brand. “It’s a clear vindication of everything we’ve been saying for eight years; that people should be allowed to vote on the land use changes.”
The city’s proposed harbor zoning, which eventually became Measure G, passed in early November 2010 by a margin of 52 to 48 percent. The entire City Council, save Brand, supported the zoning and argued that it did not require a citywide public vote. A Superior Court judged forced an election on the matter after BBR sued.
“All these fees could have been avoided if the council would have gone with my motion to put it on the ballot over two years ago,” said Brand. “Putting [Measure G] on the ballot would have cost nothing. It ended on the ballot anyway.”
The city had claimed that zoning ordinances approved by the City Council in 2005 and 2008 predated the BBR initiative, Measure DD, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters late in 2008. DD enacted a change in the City Charter requiring a public vote on “significant changes” to land use in the city. The zoning amendments, intended to spur revitalization in the harbor, allowed up to 400,000 sq. ft. of additional commercial development in the harbor area, and removed all residential zoning. The measure, which was opposed by BBR as too development-friendly, also added park zoning to the AES power plant site and amenities such as a public boat ramp and a 12-foot waterfront promenade.
“The council did the right thing for the good of the city,” said City Attorney Mike Webb. “And we are in this position because of that.”
The city didn’t lose its appeal on merits but rather because the issue had become moot after Measure G passed, according to the appellate decision.
“The appellate court didn’t say BBR was right,” Webb said. “It said it was a moot point because the city had won the election. If the city had lost the election wouldn’t have been moot. That’s the irony of the situation.”
Webb argued that the city sought legal guidance from the Superior Court and BBR as to what zoning was in place if what was passed in 2005 and 2008 had never taken effect, and because it received no such guidance was left in a legal conundrum in that it could not delay an election it felt was legally unnecessary.
“So the council could not do what BBR wanted without exposing the city to chaos, stagnation in the harbor, and potential liability from property owners in that area because of uncertainty in what the zoning would be, which is according to BBR’s own lawyer,” Webb said.
Councilmember Steve Diels said that the city can’t react to every special interest group’s demands. “The question is whether or not the nuance of the issue needed to be on the ballot,” he said. “While I respected the legal question, I have no respect for the amount of money that BBR sought. People are sick of waste, fraud and abuse and this is a form of lawsuit abuse… does such a simple question really require a $300,000 verdict? It really is simple.”
“We feel some vindication in the judge’s ruling- all the appellate judges,” Jim Light, the president of BBR said. “We kind of expected this to be the outcome, but instead we had to go through [the city’s] route at incredible costs to the city and taxpayers.”
The Santa Monica-based attorney who represented BBR, Frank Angel, feels the fees are completely reasonable. “It was a very complex case,” Angel said. “It required a lot of care and a lot of attention. That’s what I gave it and that’s why I won.” According to Angel, his law firm documented every expense extensively. “We put time down very honestly. I’m still flabbergasted that the city has never released its own expenses,” said Angel.
Webb noted that BBR had actually filed two lawsuits and lost the other one – which was over public records regarding litigation expenses BBR accused the city of unlawfully withholding – in a December ruling.
“They won of two they completely lost the other,” Webb said. “They claimed to be acting in public good and they weren’t. The only difference is we don’t spend a lot of time on PR for the lawsuit we won…They filed two lawsuits but the way state law is, the city has to pay their attorney’s fees and they don’t have to pay ours in the one we won.”
According to Brand, the council originally estimated that the litigation fees would reach $30,000 – $70,000.
Councilman Steve Aspel felt that the amount of money, largely based on Angel’s $550 an hour fee, was wildly excessive.
“It’s an absolute travesty that Frank Angel got paid that much money,” said Aspel. “The judge who awarded it is totally out of line. Again, it’s not a travesty they won the case. That is what it is – you go to court and take what comes down, and we accept that. But there is no reason for a lawyer to make a windfall profit like this.”
“Earlier the city was complaining that they couldn’t have their Santa Clause [because of lack of funds],” said Angel. “If they would have listened to us, they would have saved themselves thousands of dollars and they could have had their Santa.”
Diels acknowledged that in a time when city budgets are being cut, the amount of money used for this lawsuit will hurt city programs. “Anything that comes out of the general fund could have been spent on park space, public safety, virtually anything,” said Diels. “While we did expect there would be a cost to do this should we lose, we never expected it would have been this amount of money. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it moral or ethical or right.”
“This all could have been avoided,” stressed Brand. “Note to future councils – if you violate chapter 27 of the city charter and disenfranchised citizens, you’re going to get sued by your own residents; and it’s going to be expensive.”
