Bolsa Chica Builder Sues Citizens Group Opposing Its Project

Charging that Amigos de Bolsa Chica has been misusing the courts and making frivolous allegations, the developer of the Bolsa Chica wetlands has filed a countersuit against the citizens group that has been waging a court battle to stop the proposed development.

“Individuals within the Amigos organization seem to be simply misusing the judicial system to delay a project which has numerous environmental and public benefits,” Signal Properties Inc. charged in a statement released Friday.

Signal’s cross-complaint, filed Wednesday in Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana, asks the courts to assess unspecified damages against Amigos de Bolsa Chica to repay the developer for legal fees and other costs brought about by the group’s lawsuits.

But an attorney for Amigos de Bolsa Chica said the cross-complaint was filed “totally to intimidate and bully Amigos.”

“Their statement that there’s no facts (behind the Amigos’ allegations) is absurd. The facts are in their own documents,” said Lynda Martyn, the Amigos’ attorney.

Amigos de Bolsa Chica has contended that a 1973 deal between the two primary landowners of the wetlands, Signal and the state of California, was illegal. The agreement provided for the state to receive 300 acres near the intersection of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway that are now a state ecological reserve. Signal got hundreds of acres in the deal that, combined with other land the company owns, are the planned site of a $1-billion residential development and marina.

If the 1973 land swap is found to be illegal, it will jeopardize Signal’s plans to build a major marina, residential and commercial development.

Twice after the 10-year-old lawsuit was filed, Superior Court judges rejected the Amigos challenge, ruling that the group’s lawsuit had been filed too late. A state Court of Appeal concurred. But in 1984, the state Supreme Court agreed to consider the Amigos appeal, vacating the appellate court ruling. Last year, after Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas took office, the case was transferred back to Orange County without any further ruling.

Lawsuit Revived

When Signal Landmark asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, a Superior Court commissioner rejected the request, reviving the lawsuit--a major victory for the Amigos.

The Amigos’ most recent amendment to the lawsuit alleges that the state of California conveyed oil rights under 1,900 acres of the property to Signal and did not disclose the fact to the public or to the State Lands Commission.

Signal, in its countersuit, calls the allegations “serious . . . without any legal fact or basis. . . . These continued delays foster misconceptions about our project in the community.”

The Amigos’ charge that there was fraud involved likewise is “without any legal or factual basis” and represents “a transparent attempt to circumvent the bar of the statute of limitations . . . ,” Signal’s countersuit states.

But Amigos’ attorney Martyn said Signal’s own documents include minutes of a 1973 State Lands Commission meeting in which the agency states it is conveying oil rights only to 63 acres, while the documents for the 1973 land trade convey rights to 1,900 acres.

The attorney for Signal was unavailable for comment.

“In three separate hearings over the last 10 years, the courts have found in favor of Signal Properties and the state of California,” Signal’s statement says. “We are concerned that the intended delay sought by the Amigos’ protracted litigation will interfere with the efforts to restore and enhance the hundreds of acres of wetlands proposed to be created at Bolsa Chica by Signal Properties, the county of Orange, the Coastal Commission and the state of California. . . .

“Our position has always been that we would prefer to work with the Amigos in a planning process rather than through the courts. We have repeatedly offered to do so. We are still hopeful that this can occur. As far as we are concerned, the door is still open,” Signal’s statement concludes.

The Amigos’ attorney countered that Signal has not won the last three court battles, that actually the developer lost two significant fights the last time the parties were in court when the judge did not dismiss the group’s lawsuit. It was at that time that the judge allowed Amigos to amend the lawsuit with the fraud allegation, she said.

Signal’s statement released Friday “is basically a total PR statement without factual basis,” Martyn said. “You have this large wealthy corportion, and they’re trying to intimidate a small, nonprofit citizens group.”