Tuesday, September 18, 2001 L.B. gets Q'way OK - with conditions   By Will Shuck, From our Sacramento Bureau SACRAMENTO - A long-simmering civic dispute over the proposed Queensway Bay tourist development in Long Beach spilled into the state Capitol on Monday, as city officials and residents debated for three hours before a state panel that ultimately gave both sides part of what they wanted. The State Lands Commission unanimously agreed to a deal that would allow the Queensway Bay project to move ahead as planned. But the three-member panel also put strict conditions on the deal, which will prevent the city from changing the $100 million development or from granting any further extensions to the developer, who is already years behind schedule. Long Beach will now be freed from constraints in state law that could have prevented it from building a movie theater and book store in Queensway Bay, because such uses may violate the state trust under which the city owns its waterfront land. In exchange, Long Beach will give the state about 10 acres of land near the Los Angeles River, which will thereafter be constrained by the same development restrictions that were lifted from the Queensway Bay parcel. But after hearing the concerns of local environmentalists and residents opposed to the 450,000-square-foot area of shops, restaurants and entertainment facilities, which they say is nothing more than an oceanfront mall, the State Lands Commission added a series of conditions to the trade. If the city fails to meet the conditions, the land-use trade would be rescinded. Those conditions, proposed by state Controller Kathleen Connell, prevent the city from changing the project, require that it be under construction by May 30, 2002, and preclude the developer from chopping the projects into smaller pieces and phasing construction over a longer period. "We have no doubt that DDR (Developers Diversified Realty Corp.) will meet its May 31, 2002, deadline," said Long Beach Mayor Beverly O'Neill. Connell insisted on those conditions after Long Beach residents complained of city mismanagement: "I'm a Long Beach resident, and I'm getting used to the fiascoes," Norm Ryan, a candidate for mayor told the panel. "If this is your first one, welcome." Opponents complained that the city had inflated the value of the land it was giving to the public trust and undervalued the Queensway Bay land that would be freed of restrictions. And they complained that the city was trading an unusable piece of freeway median for a valuable chunk of land south of Ocean Boulevard. "There's no public access," Ann Cantrell said of the grassy patch, surrounded by freeway on- and off-ramps east of Cesar Chavez Park. "You are basically telling children to go play in the freeway," said Traci Wilson-Kleekamp, a key foe of the project, who has helped organize local opposition. Connell pressed staff and city officials to respond. "There's no point in us getting land that we can't access," she said. That parkland, though owned by the state, would remain under city control. The city cannot use the land in a way that serves only the local area, according to the public trust restrictions. The city could make bike or walking trails, but likely not fields that would serve only local teams. City Manager Henry Taboada told Connell the city might build a pedestrian bridge, or tunnel, or install a traffic light to allow foot traffic over the nearly 10-acre parcel. Residents also warned that the city could even sell the Queensway land if plans fell through. Activist Don May called the swap a "travesty" that was insulting to residents. "There's no state benefit here," May said. "It makes no sense." Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, chairman of the Lands Commission, said he had received assurances from the attorney general's office that the deal would likely withstand legal challenge. Connell agreed to approve the land-use swap, as long as the other members agreed to her conditions. Both sides claimed victory, at least in part. "I think this is a big victory for us," said Wilson-Kleekamp. "We're happy we got conditions on it," May said. "But we're still going to court." Calling the decision "a full loaf" Taboada said, "Once they (the commissioners) relinquish control, we can put anything we want there." To which O'Neill quickly added: "We plan to put on it what we said we would."