Under It All, the Issue Is Money : Marsh Pact Sinks Into Bog of Legal Disputes

Heavy rainfall these past few months has replenished Madrona Marsh, to the delight of the migrating ducks that puttered around tiny ponds there this week.

The vernal marsh is one of the South Bay’s few remaining refuges for migrating birds and other wildlife, and preserving it has been an environmental cause for years, one that appeared to have been settled three years ago.

That’s when developers got city approval for the giant Park del Amo commercial and residential project. In exchange, the developers agreed to sell the city some of the marsh and dedicate the rest to it. Altogether, nearly 43 acres of marsh would be preserved.

Now, construction is progressing steadily, but the agreement appears to have fallen apart and the fate of the marsh may be determined in court.

The city has sued the developers, Torrance Investment Co. and Santa Fe Land Improvement Co., contending that they violated the agreement by refusing to give the city an unconditional deed to the marsh.

Developers Sue

In response, the developers have filed their own suit, charging that the city is the one that violated the agreement by refusing to accept title to it as offered by the company. The developers want to include a clause in the deed that would allow them to regain possession of that part of the marsh dedicated to the city if it is ever used for something other than a nature preserve.

Now the courts will decide whether the meaning of “dedicate” in the original agreement means “give outright,” as Torrance says, or something less, as the developers say. No hearing dates have been set.

Money is the root of the issue. Although the marsh has not been appraised recently, the 8.5 acres recently purchased by the city--surrounded by high-priced housing and thriving commercial developments--was valued at $400,000 per acre in a 1980 appraisal, and the developers estimate its worth to be $750,000 per acre today. When Park del Amo is completed, the value will probably increase even more.

If the courts decide in favor of the developers, they will have gotten their project and the marsh. A spokesman for the developers said they have not decided how the marsh will be used if the court rescinds the agreement.

The environmentalists, who fought for nearly 15 years to preserve the marsh, could lose the marsh and face personal losses as well. The developers’ countersuit asks for unspecified damages from several of the environmentalists.

As it has been throughout the years of debate, the city continues to be the rope in the two sides’ tug of war, pulled alternately by the rights of a property owner to develop land and by the public’s interest in preserving an environmental resource.

Began in 1971

The effort to preserve the marsh began in 1971 when the city Parks and Recreation Department decided to try to acquire 30 acres of what was then called Madrona Pond at Madrona Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. The next year, the city unsuccessfully sought $3 million in federal Housing and Urban Development money to buy it.

In 1973, then-City Manager Ed Ferraro met with residents concerned about preserving the marsh, and Friends of Madrona Marsh was formed as a citizen lobby to help get state and federal money to buy it.

Later that year, a partnership called Barclay, Hollander, Curci Inc. filed a request for zone changes to allow it to develop the 54-acre site that includes the marsh and a 110-acre lot across Maple Avenue. The developers, who had options on the land, planned 1,600 to 1,700 residential units, 425,000 square feet of commercial space and 370,000 square feet for industrial space. None of the marsh would have been preserved.

But the developers withdrew their proposal several months later because of growing citizen concern for the marsh and difficulty in getting financing, according to city officials.

The city Planning Department included preservation of the marsh in its general planning guidelines in 1974. In 1976, the City Council announced its intent to preserve 54 acres of the marsh. The city spent the next four years unsuccessfully trying to get state and federal money to buy it.

Offered to Sell 15 Acres

In late 1980, developers Ray Watt and Guilford Glazer joined Curci as the Torrance Investment Co. to develop the site with Santa Fe Land Improvement Co., which had just taken over the property from a sister company. The development group attempted to sell 15 acres of the marsh to the Friends of Madrona Marsh for $6 million, and offered $3 million in donations and a $3 million loan to help the group buy it. The Friends, however, said 15 acres was not enough, and the developers withdrew their offer.

The next year, developers submitted proposals to build a much larger project than the 1973 proposal--2,500 residential units and nearly 1.6 million square feet of commercial space with only 10 acres of the marsh preserved.

The density of the project was reduced, and in February, 1982, the City Council approved plans for the construction of 2,000 dwellings and 1.3 million square feet of office space with just under 20 acres of the marsh preserved.

Marsh supporters were not satisfied, and they collected 14,000 signatures on a referendum petition to overturn the approval. The council rescinded the approval a few months later.

A scaled-down plan was submitted that reduced office and residential development by 25% and increased the marsh to nearly 35 acres, but opponents continued to push for 54 acres.

Agreement Reached

Finally, in August, 1983, the developers and environmentalists reached agreement to preserve nearly 43 acres of the marsh in exchange for city permission to build 1,482 residential units and 850,000 square feet of commercial space on the remaining property.

The developers also agreed to dedicate 34.4 acres to the city and sell it an additional 8.5 acres for $1.5 million. Nothing in the agreement specifies what “dedicate” means.

Assistant City Atty. William Quale said it was purely an oversight that the meaning was not specified in the legal documents. “Plus, we just assumed the dedicated land would be (donated) outright,” he said.

On Dec. 12, 1984, the developers offered the city a grant deed for the 8.5 acres that would allow developers to buy back the lot if the marsh dried up and offered an easement for the dedicated parcel that would allow the city to use the site as nature preserve, but with title remaining with the developers.

The city refused to accept those conditions and the two sides continued negotiating.

City Received Title

On May 31, 1985, the city and the developers reached an agreement on the 8.5 acres and the city received title to the property, with the only restriction being that the land must be used for a nature habitat or passive recreation. Otherwise, the developers could buy it back for the same price, adjusted for inflation.

The following month, the developers and the city staff worked out a deal under which the city would get the dedicated land outright, but the developers would have a 50-year option to buy it back for $100, if the city ever improved the land or used it to earn revenue.

But at the June 18, 1985, City Council meeting, according to the developers’ countersuit, representatives of the Friends “implored the City Council not to enter into any such agreement, urging them to halt all (building) permits, pull back all approvals and pursue a lawsuit against (the developers).”

The City Council voted not to accept the deal as proposed, and the developers refused to change their position. On Dec. 6 the city filed suit contending that the developers had violated the agreement by not providing title to the dedicated parcel unconditionally.

In February, a Superior Court judge allowed the city to take over temporary possession of the marsh, but through a conservation easement that allows developers to retain ownership until the suit is decided.

Countersuit Filed

The developers’ countersuit filed March 4 alleges that the city violated the agreement by not accepting the deed as offered and that the city never intended to maintain the marsh as a nature preserve.

The cross-complaint also charges that the Friends of Madrona Marsh and two homeowner groups, Torrance Heights Civic Assn. and Marble Estates Homeowners Assn., violated a separate agreement not to oppose development of Park del Amo by urging the city to file suit against them.

“Obviously they haven’t dropped their opposition,” said Jerry Rogers, a spokesman for the developers. “At any meeting at City Hall, the Friends have always had a representative complaining and urging the City Council to deny anything we wanted.

“We’ve offered the marsh in a number of ways. The city has refused to take it as we have offered. The city, by refusing to take what we are giving them, is preventing us from keeping the agreement.”

City officials and two homeowner groups named as defendants in the countersuit said they consider it a routine legal maneuver. But a spokesman for the Friends of Madrona Marsh calls the legal action an effort by developers to intimidate residents into not opposing major developments.

Rights Challenged

Sam Suitt, the founding president of the Friends, said the developers are challenging his right to freedom of speech and freedom to petition government.

“The suit is designed to intimidate the citizens into a silence of fear,” he said. “The prospect of having to defend a lawsuit is fearsome. That is the heart of the suit.”

Suitt, who was involved in the negotiations with the developers, said his group only began urging the city to file suit after the developers had made it clear “they had violated the (agreement) by not giving the deed without conditions, and had no intention to do so.”

Suitt said his group is seeking legal advice in response to the countersuit.

Rogers denied that the action was intended to violate anyone’s free speech, but rather, he said, the countersuit is in response to the city’s suit against them, and because the community groups broke an agreement not to oppose their project.

Homeowners Seek Advice

Lee Robinson, president of the Torrance Heights Civic Assn., and Claire Greenwald, president of the Marble Estates Homeowners Assn., both said that they have not yet been served with the suit. They said their groups plan to meet soon with an attorney to discuss their legal options.

Both, however, said their groups have not been active in the discussions over the deeds since they signed the agreement with the developers in 1983.

Mayor Katy Geissert said that while she considers the countersuit a routine legal maneuver, there is an appearance of “big, powerful business against the little guy.”

“Whether or not that was their intent, I think that the effect is to make individuals reluctant to comment on issues before the City Council,” she said. The environmentalists “will have to go through the expense of responding to the suit and that can be quite frightening.”

But even more frightening for the environmentalists is the possibility that the marsh they thought they had saved may be lost after all.