Once more, the Village 605 project in Los Alamitos has come across another hurdle. This time it’s in the form of a lawsuit.
Lincoln Property Company, the developer of the project located at the property adjacent to Los Alamitos City Hall, has been slapped with a suit, which claims the developer violated the California Public Resources Code and the city’s Municipal Code.
In its suit filed March 2, the Inland Oversight Committee, a nonprofit, claims that Lincoln, along with the city of Los Alamitos, violated those codes when it canceled an administrative-appeal hearing back in January.
“In this case, the developer bought off the ‘concerned citizen’ who filed the appeal that everyone else was relying on to get their day in front of the City Council on this disastrous project,” said Cory J. Briggs, who’s the attorney representing the Committee. “And an unelected bureaucrat went along with the plan to keep the public from airing its concerns and to keep the politicians in the dark.”
As a result, the Committee is seeking to void Los Al City Council’s approval of the project and is also seeking a new environmental impact report for the project, paid for by the developer.
Lincoln officials however, say it acted in “good faith in order to successfully resolve matters with the one person who did appeal the project” in January, “and that [the] appeal was withdrawn in exact accordance with the City’s Municipal Code,” according to Parke Miller, Lincoln’s executive vice president.
“It is unfortunate that an Inland Empire-based third party that did not follow the city’s appeal procedures has now chosen to litigate,” said Miller. “The petitioner did not comment on or participate in the Planning Commission’s proceedings on the Village 605 project, and did not appeal the project approval to the City Council.”
City officials have expressed the same sentiment, taking it a step further saying they “believe there is no merit to the lawsuit,” according to Los Alamitos City Manager Bret Plumlee. “Neither the Public Resources Code nor the Municipal Code requires the City to go forward with a hearing after the Appellant withdraws his hearing request.”
However, Briggs is confident in the Committee’s lawsuit.
“My client would not have sued if it ultimately expected to lose,” said Briggs.
Currently the suit is in a sort of limbo between courthouses due to a mishap when it was originally filed, said Plumlee.
“No hearing dates have been set as the case was erroneously filed in Los Angeles County and has not yet been transferred to a specific courtroom in Orange County,” said Plumlee.
The city is currently preparing an “administrative record” for the case, said Plumlee.
Miller says Lincoln is cooperating with the city in defense of the case.
Though it is still unclear when the suit might be heard in court as nothing has changed with its transfer status as of this writing, Briggs said that he expects the case to probably go to trial either by the end of this year or the beginning of next year.
If the suit is heard in January, that would mark a year since the administrative-appeal was canceled, which sparked this litigation.
In his appeal filed Dec. 6, 2016, Nathan Pinson, who’s a resident of Seal Beach, originally challenged the Los Alamitos Planning Commission’s traffic analysis of the project and its approval of a height variance allowing the construction of a 120-foot freeway pylon sign on the property, located at 3131 Katella Ave.
A hearing was scheduled for Jan. 30 with Los Al’s City Council, but Pinson withdrew his appeal a day before after reaching an “agreement” with the city and Lincoln, “that includes a significant reduction in the size and height of the proposed sign, removal of the sign’s digital screens, additional traffic safety enhancements for the community, and a sizable donation for school children safety purposes at Oak Middle School,” according to a statement sent out by his attorney Brandon Roesler.
Roesler declined to comment for this story.
The day the hearing was canceled, Los Alamitos City Clerk Windmera Quintanar sent out a press release listing the changes to the project agreed upon, which included:
“• Limiting the maximum height of the pylon sign to no more than 90 feet.
• Limiting the maximum size of each sign face on the pylon sign to no more than 2000 square feet.
• The developer will not include a digital screen component in the sign.
• The developer will cause count-down crosswalk signaling devices to be installed at the crosswalks at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Civic Center Drive, which is among the intersections covered by the permits.
• The developer will tender a sum for enhancing traffic safety for school children at Oak Middle School.”