Marina Place Mall Tied Up in Legal Battles : Development: State appeals court is expected to rule on efforts to stop construction on environmental grounds. The project also faces problems arising from the weak economy.

It’s been two years since Culver City gave developers the go-ahead to build a regional shopping mall on the westernmost tip of the city.

But all that stands today on the 18.3-acre site on Washington Boulevard, just east of Lincoln Boulevard, are two massive piles of sand, a lone tractor, and a small trailer-office.

The $169-million mall project, called Marina Place, is still locked up in a legal battle with the city of Los Angeles, which borders the mall site on three sides.

If the project survives the two legal challenges still winding their way through the courts, it still may face additional hurdles posed by the hostile economic climate.

At a hearing last week on one of the lawsuits, brought by Los Angeles and the Venice Town Council, lawyers for Los Angeles and the community group urged a four-judge Court of Appeal panel to overturn a lower court ruling, which said Culver City had complied with the California Environmental Quality Act in approving the project in March, 1990.

The plaintiffs argued that Culver City did not adequately consider the mall’s impact on traffic and air quality in the project’s environmental impact report, known as an EIR.

The appeals panel is expected to rule within three months on the case. Attorneys for the Venice community group noted that Culver City would get the financial benefits from the project, while Los Angeles would get all the traffic, and they sharply criticized the environmental report.

“We’re not asking that Culver City prepare an EIR that is perfect,” attorney Susan Goodkin said during arguments. But parts of the report, she said, are “demonstrably inaccurate and skewed in favor of the project.”

Culver City’s legal counsel, Joseph Pannone, said he did not feel any new information was brought out that would overturn the trial court’s earlier decision.

The status of the second lawsuit is less certain. In it, a citizen group called the Coastal Area Support Team is seeking to block the project on the grounds that Culver City failed to address the impact of mall traffic on public access to the beach.

A Superior Court judge has dismissed the suit, however, ruling that the group failed to file it within the required 90 days after the city approved the project. The group is appealing the dismissal, contending that it should have been granted a 120-day filing period. Debra Bowen, the group’s attorney, said she is confident the dismissal will be overturned and that the case will be heard in court.

“We’re not arguing that they can’t develop the property,” Bowen said. “But the project should be reasonable. . . . Is it reasonable to to put a million-square-foot regional mall that would generate 40,000 vehicles a day at the fifth-busiest intersection in Los Angeles, where traffic is already gridlocked?”

The proposed mall would house about 150 shops, arranged in a semicircle around an atrium. Nordstrom and Bullock’s department stores would bring up the ends of the Mediterranean-style complex. There would be a movie theater complex and restaurants, and parking for 4,640 cars in a six-level garage.

Culver City Mayor Paul Jacobs expressed frustration about the appeals, saying that the lawsuits were delaying the project for political reasons, rather than legal ones.

“I have a feeling that we’re being put through a war of attrition,” he said. “I think (the first trial) would have served to put aside the legal challenge. The goal here seems to be one of delaying, rather than determining whether there is a legal basis for (the suit) and then going on.”

Meanwhile, the developers, Prudential Insurance Co. of America and Melvin Simon & Associates, have finished demolishing the former helicopter factory that was built on the site in 1956. In spite of the recession and the lawsuits, the developers say they are fully confident the mall will be built.

“Everyone feels really good about the project still,” said Marianne Lowenthal, a Marina Place project manager for Prudential. “It’s not often you find as good a project site as we have. Also, it would take two years from the time we start building for stores to open, and we could be out of the (recession) cycle by then.”

Some uncertainty remains, however, about the ability of the mall’s two intended anchor stores, Bullock’s and Nordstrom, to proceed with plans to open stores at Marina Place. Developers said both chains are still firmly committed to opening stores in the mall, despite the fact that both have fallen on hard times.

R. H. Macy & Co., Bullock’s corporate parent, filed on Monday for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code. Financial analysts have said that Macy is likely to consider seeking a buyer for its Bullock’s operations as part of its reorganization.

Nordstrom, meanwhile, has also suffered from depressed earnings for more than a year because of the recession.

Michael Marr, Melvin Simon’s vice president of development, said that his company has been in close contact with Macy officials and that the Chapter 11 filing was not a surprise. Macy spokesman Michael Frietag confirmed that the company has plans to open a store at the mall. But in light of bankruptcy court proceedings, “We will have to review all of our plans. . . . I don’t know what plans will change in the future.”

Nordstrom spokeswoman Connie Wysaske said she could not comment on Nordstrom’s plans for a Marina Place store, citing company policy. She did say, however, that the Seattle-based company was proceeding with expansion plans this year, which include opening three Nordstrom stores and two Nordstrom Rack outlet stores.

According to a development agreement approved by the Culver City Council in 1990, Marina Place can replace Bullock’s with another high quality department store, Pannone said. It wasn’t possible to lock the developers into a contract requiring specific stores to be part of the project.

“That’s getting too restrictive with property rights,” he said. “What if the store went bankrupt? You’d be setting up impossibilities.”

That loophole worries some, like Culver City Councilman Steve Gourley.

“My fear is that they’ll replace Macy’s and Nordstrom, which they promised us in order to get approval, with a Mervyn’s and a K-mart,” he said.

Gourley said he became skeptical when the developers said they didn’t have any money to pay for Culver City traffic improvements, then turned around and offered the Venice Town Council $9 million to drop their lawsuit. The offer was turned down.

The city eventually won about $7 million in traffic mitigation fees, $2.5 million for low- and moderate-income housing, and $250,000 for child-care programs.

Gourley admits the mall will be a burden on traffic, but notes that the city needs the revenues the mall would generate, which have been estimated at $16 million over a 10-year period.