Beach Access Battle Pits State Against City Officials : Development: Huntington Beach Pierside Village plan prompts legal action by state officials who say it will limit public’s access to shoreline.

HUNTINGTON BEACH — In a case with potentially far-reaching consequences for California beach communities, the city of Huntington Beach is locked in a legal battle with the state over plans to redevelop the area near the city’s historic pier.

At issue is Huntington Beach’s long-proposed Pierside Village redevelopment plan. Pierside Village envisions a landscaped plaza of restaurants--some formal and some outdoor and casual--on the beach between Main and Lake streets, just south of the municipal pier. The proposal is a keystone in the city’s multimillion-dollar effort to redevelop downtown.

But unexpectedly, the state, fearing that increased development will interfere with public access to the beach, has moved to block building of any new restaurants, leaving the fate of Pierside Village in limbo.

“The state’s action caught us flat-footed,” said Huntington Beach Mayor Wes Bannister.

State officials see the legal battle now under way as one of major significance in their attempts to preserve California beach areas. If no out-of-court settlement can be reached, the case is scheduled to be heard next March in Orange County Superior Court.

“It’s a very important case,” said Curtis Fossum, senior staff counsel for the State Lands Commission. “The sandy beaches of California are a limited resource. . . . We want to make sure that the public has access to those beaches and that development does not supplant recreational use.”

Fossum said construction of more restaurants on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway would hinder people from being able to walk to the shore. He said the case has significance to other coastal cities that also may be tempted to convert public land.

“There is development pressure on whoever owns the (beach) property, but we believe that if the land has public rights attached to it, those public rights must be protected,” Fossum said.

However, Huntington Beach Councilman Don MacAllister said he cannot understand the state’s opposition.

“A lot of people think this (Pierside Village area) is open beach, but it isn’t,” MacAllister said last week at a City Council meeting. MacAllister noted that the entire beach area under question already has some form of development, ranging from Maxwell’s Restaurant, next to the pier, to several adjoining parking lots extending southward to Lake Street.

The Pierside Village proposal calls for several new restaurants on paved land now used as parking for beach-goers. Maxwell’s would remain; its existence is not threatened by the state’s action.

But according to city officials, the Pierside Village concept falls apart if new restaurants are prohibited.

Income for the City

Gail C. Hutton, city attorney for Huntington Beach said: “All of this is necessary to fund the pier improvements and to develop the new lifeguard headquarters. The purpose of this new development is to provide the city with income to support the improvements.”

She referred to public buildings planned near the pier. One structure would be a plaza and surfing museum at the base of the proposed new pier. The deteriorating old pier, which has been closed since July, 1988, is scheduled to be replaced. The pier funding, however, does not rely on the restaurant-construction proposal. A combination of public grants and private fund raising is planned to pay for the new pier.

Hutton leads the city’s legal defense of Pierside Village. Ironically, it was her office’s routine legal action in 1986 to try to clear title to the beach land that triggered the state’s opposition.

The land in question once was privately owned by the Huntington Beach Co., with part ownership by Standard Oil and the old Pacific Electric Railroad Co. The city successfully sued in 1932 to gain public easement rights.

But the easement did not give the city full ownership. Instead, it granted right-of-access to the land “for public, recreational, park and playground purposes and other uses appurtenant or incident thereto.”

To gain full title to the land so it could be redeveloped, Hutton’s office filed a condemnation action, while also negotiating with the owners. Hutton said the Huntington Beach Co. and Chevron (the successor to Standard Oil) “are public-spirited companies and they agreed to give up their rights.” The Southern Railway Co., which succeeded the Pacific Electric Railroad Co., has so far not agreed, Hutton said.

One other interest-holder in the land also balked: the state of California.

“We included the state in our litigation because the title company was of the opinion that the state might have some public interest in the land,” Hutton said.

Earlier this year, the State Lands Commission notified Huntington Beach that it opposes the proposed change in the beach land arrangement. The Lands Commission is a little-known but powerful agency that controls all of California’s submerged lands and its shore lands to the high-tide mark. The Huntington Beach land in question, however, is not directly governed by the Lands Commission because it is several hundred yards north of the high-tide mark.

But commission lawyer Fossum said the Lands Commission is involved because it believes that the public’s access to the shore is threatened.

“The water area of a beach is state-owned, and if a city attempts to limit public access to our public lands, obviously we have an interest,” Fossum said.

Mary Gray Holt, a deputy state attorney general who is handling the state’s legal opposition to the redevelopment, said the state also opposes the proposed redevelopment because the California Constitution dedicates beaches to public use.

“The state is taking the position that this area should be maintained as a public beach recreational area,” Holt said. “Our belief is that the city’s easement is inappropriate for private commercial purposes such as valet-parking restaurants. Now that doesn’t mean the city can’t have hamburger stands or little breakfast places--things that serve the beach-going public--in that area.”

Jonathan Chodos, the West Los Angeles-based developer of Pierside Village, said last week that the building plans include a mixture of small, outdoor eating places and two larger, indoor restaurants, including Maxwell’s.

“Public access to the beach wouldn’t be limited; instead it would be enhanced,” Chodos said. “Our revised plan calls for a mixture of eating experiences, including some cantina-like outdoor restaurants and patios. The plan is very much like the public riverfront concept in San Antonio (Tex).”

Some city officials, including Councilman John Erskine, have questioned why the State Lands Commission objects to the plan, which won the blessing of the state’s Coastal Commission in December, 1986. The Coastal Commission is the watchdog agency over lands extending beyond the high-tide mark.

Holt, of the attorney general’s office, said: “For one thing, the Coastal Commission didn’t know at the time that the city only had an easement to that land and that the easement was dedicated to the public. And for another thing, the Coastal Commission’s permit (for the proposed redevelopment) has now expired, and the city will have to seek it again.”

Holt doubts that the Coastal Commission will approve a permit the second time around. “I think that the commission takes a strong stand on public-dedication easements,” she said.

A new residents’ group in Huntington Beach, called Save Our Parks, opposes the restaurant construction. In a fiery speech to the City Council on Nov. 13, Save Our Parks member Larry Geisse said the organization strongly supports the state in its effort to oderail Pierside Village.

‘Cheering State On’

Debbie Cook, chairwoman of Save Our Parks, said later in the week: “We’re cheering the state on. This (beach) land is supposed to be used by the people.”

City Council members last week said the land will continue to be used by the public if it is redeveloped. The only difference, they said, would be a better atmosphere and more dining spots.

But Fossum, of the Lands Commission, said that paradoxically, Huntington Beach is now trying to privatize some valuable land it won for public access back in 1932.

“Huntington Beach would not be the beautiful community it is today if its leaders had not had the foresight to get public access to that beach land back in 1932,” Fossum said. “If they had done nothing, that land could be full of condos and commercial buildings today. Instead, it’s public access land.

“All the people of California should be thankful to Huntington Beach for what it did back in 1932, when it was not popular to do that kind of thing to help public access to the beaches. The city took on an important responsibility when it got that public easement. We just want to make sure that the city fulfills that responsibility.”