The city of Redondo Beach last week filed a written response with the Torrance Superior Court urging it to deny Hermosa Beach’s request to retain its right to sue its neighbor to the south if the revision of the Heart of the City plan is as ill-favored as the original.

In August, Hermosa Beach asked a court judge to grant it a stay on a lawsuit it filed in April against Redondo Beach, claiming the original Heart of the City plan would create adverse congestion and traffic impacts on Hermosa Beach residents living near its southern border.

The stay would impart authority to the Hermosa Beach City Council to suspend its litigation and initiate it again if the Redondo Beach City Council approves the same or a similar plan that may still cause traffic and congestion problems in Hermosa Beach.

Redondo Beach city officials voted to rescind the controversial plan in June, and agreed to overhaul certain aspects of it related to land development and density.

Enclosed in the Redondo Beach document submitted to the court is a written declaration from City Manager Louis Garcia stating, “The revised Heart of the City specific plan that will be prepared by staff, and recommended by me for City Council approval, will be substantially identical to the one that was rescinded, albeit at a lower housing density.”

Hermosa Beach argues in its suit that the mitigation measures outlined in the plan’s environmental impact report are insufficient in alleviating potential increases in traffic and congestion along its southern border.

Hermosa Beach City Attorney Mike Jenkins asserts that Garcia’s declaration gives Hermosa Beach a very nonspecific reduction in the housing density which supports the city’s argument for a stay.

“This declaration serves to support the city’s rationale for seeking a stay,” said Jenkins. “Some may view it as statement in which we should go forward with the lawsuit. There is no reason to postpone litigation because with this plan, what you see is what you get, and if there are problems in the EIR then we (Redondo Beach) want to know about them now. Others might suggest that this plan will be very different one after it is considered again by a different City Council.”

Hermosa Beach filed its request for a stay and hopes the court will grant it since it would not be able to sue the city of Redondo Beach over the same issues if it is forced to officially drop its lawsuit.

In the court document, Redondo Beach Assistant City Attorney John Eastman contends that Hermosa Beach’s request for a stay is nothing more than a ploy.

“Hermosa has done no work on this case, and its brief is due Nov. 5,” writes Eastman. “Here, the EIR was certified on March 19, 2002. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requires a trial within a reasonably expedited time thereafter. Hermosa’s alleged ‘rock in a hard place’ is a creature of Hermosa’s own device. There is nothing to prevent Hermosa from going forward except its failure to have done any work on this case, and its unwillingness to finance this litigation.”

Jenkins added the lawsuit challenges mitigation measures caused by density which affect the overall quality of life for Hermosa Beach residents.

“We are looking at the big picture. It’s not just about density; it’s about traffic and congestion caused by density,” said Jenkins. “It’s a change in the overall environment.”

In April, thousands of Redondo Beach voters signed a petition to put the plan on a ballot in the form of a referendum to target two zoning ordinances. Residents who signed the petition expressed concern about the high density, traffic and noise impacts that the plan would generate in the city.

In June, the Redondo Beach City Council rescinded the referendum and is now prohibited from proceeding with the plan for one year.

The original Heart of the City plan called for significant changes to Redondo Beach’s waterfront and the AES power plant located along Hermosa Beach’s southern border. The plan would have allowed for up to 675,000 square foot of commercial development and almost 3,000 residential units by allowing as little as 16 units per acre or up to 55 units per acre.

Redondo Beach City Attorney Jerry Goddard claimed that if Hermosa Beach would like to challenge the plan’s EIR, it should move forward with its litigation. He said that in using the lawsuit as leverage against Redondo Beach by way of the court is the wrong method in resolving the issue.

“I understand Hermosa’s objection is with density but it chose to attack it through the EIR. If there is something wrong with the EIR, then Hermosa Beach needs to go to court and prove it,” explained Goddard. “Why is Hermosa Beach positioning itself in this way? The EIR will not stop the city from moving forward with the development. If the court tells Redondo Beach it needs to certify another EIR because this one is deficient in its mitigation measures on traffic, then it will certify another one. Then what? Is Hermosa Beach going to sue again and expend more public funds?”

Hermosa Beach Councilman Michael Keegan claims the city does not know how the specifics in a new reduction in density would affect the city’s arguments related to traffic and congestion.

“We are asking for a stay so that way, we are not spending money in court arguing over a plan which is now going to change in terms of density,” said Keegan. “It may change by 1 percent or 100 percent; we don’t know and we want to stay on it at least until Redondo Beach comes back with its changes to the plan.”

Assistant City Manager Sue Armstrong said she does not know the specifics as to the reduction in density nor does she know whether any other aspect in the plan aside from the density will be changed in the future.

“All I can tell you is the process that the city is going through now is a completely legal process,” she said. “Everyone is listening closely to all of the comments being made by the public and the council can’t take action on any of this until next June.”

Jenkins will wait for the court’s ruling on the motion to stay which is expected to be out this Thursday, Oct. 24.

“I can’t begin to speculate on the outcome of this motion,” said Jenkins. “But, I would like to think the court will not want to adjudicate a case on a project that may never happen.”