A contentious legal battle has erupted over a power plant site in Redondo Beach, with the City of Redondo Beach filing a complaint against the property owners. The case, filed on June 6, 2024, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County by the City of Redondo Beach, pits the city against 9300 Wilshire LLC and other associated entities.
The dispute centers around allegations that the city's zoning decisions have effectively deprived the property owners of any economically viable use of their land. The property owners, referred to as "Owners" in court documents, claim that since acquiring the power plant and its surrounding real estate in 2020, they have faced continuous resistance from the city regarding rezoning efforts. They argue that this resistance constitutes a regulatory taking and violates their substantive due process rights. According to the Owners' first amended cross-complaint (FACC), there has been a "decades-long effort" by the city to "zone out of existence any economically viable alternative use" of their property.
The origins of this conflict date back to at least 1998 when a memorandum of understanding between the city and then-owner AES Corp. indicated plans to downsize the power plant and develop commercial uses for the remaining land. However, subsequent actions by community activists and local political groups led to restrictive measures like Measure DD in 2008 and Measure G in 2010, which changed the property's land use designation without providing viable alternatives for redevelopment. The Owners contend that these measures were part of an orchestrated scheme by the city to convert their property into parklands without offering just compensation.
In response to these allegations, the City filed a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). The city argued that its zoning decisions were protected activities under this statute because they involved public statements and legislative actions aimed at regulating land use for public benefit. However, Judge Maurice A. Leiter denied this motion at its first step, ruling that while some statements cited by Owners might be protected speech, their claims primarily arise from zoning decisions themselves—actions not covered under anti-SLAPP protections.
The Owners are seeking several forms of relief from the court: declaratory judgment confirming a regulatory taking has occurred, compensation for inverse condemnation under both federal and state constitutions, and damages for alleged violations of substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
Representing the City are attorneys Michael W. Webb and Cheryl Yeun Shin Park from Redondo Beach's Office of City Attorney; Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo's Jonathan Welner; Antony D. Nash; and Nada I. Shamonki. The respondents are represented by Rutan & Tucker's Douglas J. Dennington; Ajit Singh Thind; and Jayson Parsons.