Little Shell will not become part of hotel expansion

Tariq Malik

HUNTINGTON BEACH -- A section of wetlands near the Waterfront Hilton

Beach Resort will not become part of the hotel’s expansion.

The council voted 4 to 2 Monday, with Councilwomen Connie Boardman and

Debbie Cook dissenting and Councilman Dave Garofalo absent, to publicly

affirm a November decision made behind closed doors to preserve Little

Shell from being part of the Robert Mayer Corp.’s expansion of the

Waterfront Hilton. Mayer’s plans are to build townhomes and duplexes on

the wetlands near the hotel.

Little Shell, as it is called by environmentalists, is only only

seven-tenths of an acre along the western side of Beach Boulevard near

Pacific Coast Highway and has been a hotly contested subject between

activists, city officials and developers for the last six months.

On Nov. 20, the City Council met in closed session to decide whether

to sue the California Coastal Commission for revoking building permits in

September on Little Shell and an adjacent development site. Council

members decided to settle the matter by writing a deed restriction

prohibiting development.

City Clerk Connie Brockway said the goal of Monday’s discussion was to

correct the Nov. 20 action so it reflected that the Council was also

sitting as the redevelopment agency when it made its decision. It also

was to correct the vote called out of closed session and give her the

authority to sign the deed restriction if the county registrar requires

it.

Last month, the City Council reported out of closed session with a 6

to 0 vote, with Garofalo absent, to approve the settlement. However, the

correct vote was 5 to 0, with Garofalo and then-Councilman Tom Harman

absent.

But some council members believe the decision should not have been

made behind closed doors in the first place.

Cook, an environmental attorney by trade, said the closed session

settlement could constitute a violation of the state’s Brown Act, which

regulates open meetings for local government agencies.

The purpose of going into closed session is to decide yes or no to

pursuing litigation, Cook said.

She added once city officials decided not to sue the commission, the

matter should have been brought to the public to approve the settlement.

“The Brown Act is designed to have public business discussed in

public,” said Paul D’Allesandro, assistant city attorney. “But there is a

pending litigation exception, which not only allows us to discuss

existing lawsuits concerning the city, but whether to pursue lawsuits as

well.”

According to a 1992 opinion by the state Attorney General’s office,

local governing bodies can hold closed sessions under the “pending

litigation” exception to deliberate or take action upon the settlement of

a lawsuit.