HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP 133; Occidental Petroleum; Master Plan (MP) (17)WRITE IT—DON'T SA. IT INTER-DEPARTMENT
A.M.
TO City Manager DATE August 1 19' 75 P.M.
Attached is the Attorney General's opinion denying
Occidental's claim of exemption. I would like to make
copies available to the City Council. Before doing so,
we should verify the facts of the opinion. I suggest
asking Don to go through it in detail. Sooner or later
we'll need such an analysis of the Occidental situation
outselves in any case. Of particular interest is the
statement that a Tentative Map has been approved in the
PC zone without a Specific Plan and the current state of
park dedication and school agreements. , .. ^ _,
-\ ^-,
,yf:>^ ~V ^0 ^ -* '' *'"' ":"''J 1^
^—i
Attachment
REPLY ON THIS SHEET FRO" v city Attorney /ml,
/ W1LMER "SERVtCf U.NC STANDARD INTER DEFT, MEMO. FORM 1 1-24
J. YOUNGER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Itejrartwmt rf iuatfr?
110 West A St., #600 SSCKKXMXMSCK SAN DIEGO 93101
July 31, 1975
Vincent F. Biondo, JreCity Attorney of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Don Agatep
City Planner of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re; Occidental Land, Inc.
Claim of Exemption FX0137
Dear Vince and Don:
Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum regarding the
Occidental Land, Inc., Claim of Exemption, before the San
Diego Coast Regional Commission. I believe that all of the
facts set forth in the memorandum are accurate. However,
I would confess to some confusion regarding the history of
this development and if you find I am in error in any respect,
I would appreciate your informing me, 1 am very appreciative
of the time and assistance you both provided me in terms of
providing me with background information and making available
the City s files. The matter is set for Friday } August 1,
before the Coast Commission and I am sure you will learn of the
result shortly thereafter.
Very truly yours ,
ANTHONY C. JOSEPH
Deputy Attorney General
AC J: nl
Encs.
State.or .California
I -
Memorandum
Department of Justice
To s ALL COMMISSIONERS
SAN DIEGO COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Date s July 30, 1975
Fife No.:
From : Office of the Attorney General - San Diego
ANTHONY C. JOSEPH, Deputy Attorney General
Subject: Occidental Land, Inc.
Claim of Exemption FX0137
r
I. BACKGROUND
Occidental Land, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Occidental)
f/iled the present Claim of Exemption on February 21, 1975- The
^ublip Hearing on Occidental's Claim of Exemption was held March 21,
M97W Thereafter, on April 11, 1975, a letter requesting additional
Info/rmation was sent by the Attorney General's office to Occidental's
attorney. By letter of May 7, 1975^ Occidental's attorney asked
the Executive Director of the Regional Commission for a continuance
of the final vate to a time beyond the sixty-day period for votes
on matters before the Regional Commission. This .letter expressly
waives the sixty-day provision. The May 1, 1975, letter also states
that .the extension of time was sought to provide the information
sought by the Attorney General's office.
By letter of July 1, 1975* Occidental's attorney provided information
and documents relating to the request of the Attorney General's
office. The earliest Regional Commission meeting thereafter at
which a final vote could be taken was the August 1, 1975s meeting.
This was due to the fact that the Fourth of July holiday was on
the first Friday in July and no "final vote" matters were heard
at the July 18, 1975* meeting.
II. FACTS
The following facts are based upon materials in the Commission's
files, including materials filed by Occidental as attachments to
their Claim of Exemption form, materials attached to a letter
from Occidental's attorney to the Office of the Attorney General,
dated July 1, 1975* and documents obtained by Mr. Joseph of the
Attorney General's office from the public records of the City of
Carlsbad.
A. Property On Which Exemption Is Claimed
Occidental claims an exemption from the permit provisions of the
Coastal Act for development of all property designated on Exhibit A
-1-
-2-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. July 30, 1975
attached to Occidental's Claim of Exemption (a copy of which is
attached hereto) excluding those properties which are not presently
owned by Occidental. (See letter, attached hereto, of April 28,
1975 j from Occidental's attorney to San Diego Coast Regional
Commission, attention Thomas A. Crandall.) At the present time,
the parcels designated No. 2 (Covington), No. 10 (Sequoia Pacific)
and Nos. 11, 12 and 13 (Lusk and Son [see Claim of Exemption
Exhibit D]) on the attached Exhibit A are not owned by Occidental
and therefore are not part of the Claim of Exemption as clarified by
the letter of Occidental's attorney of April 28, 1975- This leaves
under the Claim of Exemption the parcels designated 1, 3, 4/5,
6/7, 8 and 9. At various times applications for tentative sub-
division maps or specific plans were filed with the City of Carlsbad
on Parcels 1 (Hester), 3 (Tracy-Woods) and 9 (Shopper's World)
by developers other than Occidental.
Exhibits B, 0, F and G attached to Occidental's Claim of Exemption
are lists of obligations and expenditures the preponderance of
which relate to property not presently in the ownership of
Occidental. The expenditures and "obligations" set forth in such
exhibits must be reevaluated in terms of the property now owned
by Occidental. As an example of such recalculation, Exhibit B
lists all of the claimed costs of completed improvements. All
of the listed costs with the exception of the Alta Mira Sewer
Oversizing f|30,000} the sewer east of the freeway and north of
Poinsettia ($30,000) and the Encina Sewer extension ($360,000)
relate directly to Sequoia Pacific's mobile home park (Parcel 10).
Also, a portion of the Encina Sewer Oversizing would be attribu-
table to Sequoia Pacific's mobile home park, which is not owned
by Occidental, and to the property owned by Lusk and Son (Parcels
11, 12 and 13). It appears that Occidental Land, Inc., does not
intend to develop any of the individual parcels of property.
Several developers who apparently did not complete a purchase
of parcels of the property set forth on Exhibit A have filed for
tentative subdivision maps or specific plan approval from the
City of Carlsbad. Such filings have occurred in regard to Parcel
1 (Tentative Map 73-23 and Specific Plan-135). Parcel 3 (Tentative
Map 73-58, Specific Plan-l47, Tentative Map 7^-23 and Specific
Plan-165), and Parcel 9 (Specific Plan-152). -
The only portion of the property set forth on Exhibit A on which
construction has been commenced is the mobile home park on Parcel
10 which is owned by Sequoia Pacific. In addition, a sewer line
from the Encina Sewer Treatment Plant has been run to the border
of the property to service all the parcels west of Interstate 5
as set forth on Exhibit A. Four of the seven parcels in such
area are owned by Sequoia Pacific or Lusk and Son. The three
remaining properties are zoned for commercial use and it is likely
that the extent of the use of the sewer by such commercial
developments will be substantially less than the use of the sewer
by the four residential developments which have been under discussion
with the City of Carlsbad.
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. July 30, 1975
B. Present Development Status Of Parcels Owned
By Occidental
The status of development of the properties now apparently owned
by Occidental is set forth in part in Exhibit D to the Claim of
Exemption. In that exhibit, it is indicated that a Tentative
Subdivision Map for Parcel 1 was approved by the Carlsbad City
Council in September of 1974. (See City Council Resolution No.
3503.) Specific Plan 135 sought for Parcel 1 has never been
approved, although it was considered by the Carlsbad Planning
Commission on November 13, 1973- No other specific plan in
regard to Parcel 1 has been adopted.
Several tentative subdivision maps and specific plans for Parcel
3 were presented to the City of Carlsbad. (Tentative Map 73-58,
Tentative Map 74-23, Specific Plan-l47 and Specific Plan-3.69.)
Hov/ever, it appears that the last tentative map and specific plan
filed with Carlsbad were not considered by the Planning Commission
or the City Council. The Carlsbad Planning Staff recommended
denial of the last tentative map and specific plan filed on Parcel
3. In part, the negative recommendation was based on the analysis
of the Assistant Planner of the City of Carlsbad in a memo of
March 11, 1975j to the Planning Commission wherein it is indicated:
"It is noted that in the absence of an approved Specific Plan,
land in the P-C Zone may not be subdivided." (Also relating to
development of Parcel 3 are the following letters: (1) from the
City of Carlsbad to Jim D. Johnson, President, Occidental Land, Inc.,
January 15, 1975; (2) from G. Richard Smith, General Counsel of
Occidental Land, Inc., to Mr. Ralph Plender, Assistant Planning
Director, City of Carlsbad, December 11, 1974; and (3) from R. A.
Crawford, District Superintendent, Carlsbad Unified School District
to the City of Carlsbad, dated January 14, 1975.)
Other than Parcels 1 and 3 on Exhibit A, all of the remaining
parcels in the ownership of Occidental are presently zoned for
commercial uses. Parcel 4/5 was recorded as an independent
parcel by means of subdivision in July of 1974. Occidental indicates
in Exhibit D to the Claim of Exemption that this parcel is in
"preliminary design phase". Carlsbad City Ordinance No. 9245
(adopted January 6, 1970) adopted specific plans for each of these
four parcels. The specific plans included conditions that required
approval of details of the driveway locations as to each commercial
property and of a concept of architecture to be adopted for all
the commercial areas. (See sections 3A and G of Carlsbad Ordinance
No. 9245.)
At the time of adoption of the four commercial zone specific plans,
no tentative subdivision map had been approved as to the commercial
parcels of property. By means of Resolution No. 3130 of the City
of Carlsbad (adopted on May 15, 1973), a tentative map (CT 71-2)
-4-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land., Inc. July 30, 1975
was approved which included a division of the land west of Interstate
5 into six parcels. Three of the six parcels into which the property
was divided are Parcels 6/7 , 8 and 9-
A Specific Plan No. 152 was applied for on Parcel 9 in October of
1973. Such plan was in regard to an application on behalf of
Shopper's World and was tabled at the request of Occidental by
a letter to Mr. E. W. Dominguez, Chairman of the City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission dated January 18,
C. "Master Plan" And Governmental Approvals
It appears that Occidental bases its Claim of Exemption upon the
approval of a "master plan" and changes in zoning by the City of
Carlsbad at the request of H. B. Development, Occidental's
predecessor, obtained in December of 1969 and January of 1970.
(See Exhibit E to Claim of Exemption.) The background memo from
Carlsbad's City Manager to the Planning Commission dated November
19 3 1969 3 in regard to the H. B. Development Company's "master
plan" request, indicates that changes in density in regard to the
zones involved in the land set forth on Exhibit A would be required.
The City Manager's memo specifically indicates in Item B ("Reclas-
sification to Planned Community Zone and Adoption of Master Plan")
that :
"Those areas to be developed as planned community will
be done so in conformance with the City Planned Community
Ordinance (No. 9218), which stipulates submittal of
Specific Plans and Tentative Subdivision Maps for
review by the Planning Commission and City Council, prior
to development." (See Paragraph 3 of Item B, page 3
of memorandum. )
Paragraph 4 of Item B states:
"The Specific Plans, which will be submitted at a later
date, shall delineate the locations of all proposed
structures, open space areas, residential road systems,
etc. The Tentative Map will designate the tentative
configuration of all "the lots to be created, including
the parks and school sites, as well as tentative details
on street design and utility layouts."
On page 6 of the Carlsbad City Manager's memorandum, section V sets
forth conditions of the "master plan". The first of those conditions
is "that those areas reclassified to Planned Community be developed
in conformance with Ordinance No. 9218". Ordinance No. 92 18 is an
ordinance of the City of Carlsbad regarding creation of planned
community zones* Section 1380 of that ordinance states:
-5-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. July 30, 1975
"Prior to the time of development of any area within
the Master Development Plan, a Specific Plan prepared
by. a registered architect, or a civil engineer for the
specific area proposed for development shall be adopted,
which said specific plan shall include at least the
following:
E. The proposed use of all land.
F. The number of dwelling units per net acre.
G. The location, dimensions and types of
improvement proposed for all streets,
walkways, driveways, parking and service
areas.
H. The location, height, number of stories
and number of units for each proposed
residential structure."
(Numerous other requirements which set forth the details
and specifics of any specific plan for a planned com-
munity development are included in Paragraphs J through 0.)
The effect of the "master plan" (see Carlsbad City Council Resolution
Nos. 1670 and 1671) was to rezone portions of the property and to
increase allowed densities in the new zones within the land then
owned-by H. B. Development which was thereafter sold to Occidental.
The "Master Plan" obtained by Occidental from the City of Carlsbad
is limited to Planned Community zones only.(See Ordinance No. 9218,
section 1376.) The Planned Community zones within the property
set forth on Exhibit A are Parcels 1, 2, 3, 12 and 13. Only Parcels
1 and 3 are now owned by Occidental. No tentative map has been
approved as to Parcel 3 at any time. No specific plan.has been
approved as to either Parcel 1 or 3 at any time. A tentative map
was approved for Parcel 1 in September 1974.
D. Interdependency And Obligations Of Occidental
Finally3 in support of its Claim of Exemption, Occidental contends
"there is interdependency of each portion of the project upon
every other portion." (See Exhibit I to the Claim of Exemption.)
In support of this position, Occidental indicates that the sewer
already ins-tailed (by which Occidental must mean both the Encina.
Sewer extension and the sewer extension to the property East of
Interstate 5) has been designed to accommodate the entire project.
Occidental also states that, "School and park sites are dependent
upon the completion of the project in its entirety, the quantity
and quality of which were determined initially by the size of the
project as presented." Occidental also contends that it has a
contingent liability in connection with the railroad overpass at
Poinsettia Lane and the Atchison, Topeka, Santa Fe Railroad Crossing
and obligations to purchasers and developers of the land for
construction of streets, roads, sewers and drainage. (See Exhibits
-6-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. July 30, 1975
H and I to the Claim of Exemption.)
1- Railroad Overpass
The agreement to construct an overpass at the Atchison, Topeka,
Santa Fe Railroad has undergone many changes during the period
involved in the ownership of the land set forth on Exhibit A by
H. B. Development and Occidental. The initial agreement of
'July 73 19703 provided that plans and specifications for the
overpass will be subject to the approval of "all appropriate
governmental agencies". The First Supplement to the railroad
overpass agreement dated July 2, 1974, indicates that "Occidental's
obligation to deposit funds for the overpass is delayed pending
receipt of Regional Commission's approval of the project™. (See
Paragraph 1.) In the First Supplement, Occidental agrees that it
will "use its best efforts to secure Coast Regional Commission's
approval of the project through a permit or claim of exemption".
(See Paragraph 2 of Supplement to the Agreement.) The San Diego
Regional Coastal Commission has denied a permit to construct such
railroad overpass.
2- Dedication Of Property
The only evidence of any dedication of property to the City of
Carlsbad is a dedication made on August 6, 1973, of a parcel
approximately three hundred feet by five hundred and eighty feet
at the northeast corner of Poinsettia Lane and an extension of
Batiquitos Drive. This property was dedicated in connection with
approval of a development which was to be undertaken by Lusk and
Son on Parcels 11, 12 or 13, which were not then and are not now
in the ownership of Occidental. There is no evidence of any further
dedication in any of the materials filed by Occidental.
The agreement between the Carlsbad Unified School District and
Occidental Land, Inc., dated June 18, 1974, arrived at a means of
assessing fees or apportioning the fees for school dedication
purposes applies only to Parcels 1, 3, 11, 12 and 13. Further, ,
in Paragraph 11 of the agreement with the Carlsbad Unified School 1 w
District, it is indicated that the agreement and the obligations '
thereunder shall terminate in the event that approvals of tentative
tract maps then pending for the development land in the designated
parcels are denied Occidental; or if its successors or assigns are
unable to proceed with.construction on the designated parcels.
3. Obligations Of Occidental
The only documents in the administrative file relating to obli-
gations of Occidental to purchasers of portions of the property
set forth on Exhibit A are the purchase agreement between Occidental
-7-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. July 30, 1975
and Lusk and Son dated May 12, 1972, and the agreement of purchase
and sale between Occidental and Sequoia Pacific dated February 18,
1971. In Paragraph II of the Lusk and Son purchase agreement,
Occidental agrees that prior to the closing date of the escrow
sewer, water, storm drains and other off-site improvements will
be brought to the property line of the parcels involved. No
evidence of whether utilities, other than sewer lines, were
already to the property line is contained in the files. Nor
is there any evidence in the administrative file that any of the
listed utilities have been extended to date or will be in the
future.
In the agreement of purchase and sale between Occidental and
Sequoia Pacific dated February 18, 1971* Occidental agrees to
construct and install sewer lines and storm drains to the property.
Occidental states that a sewer line from the Encina Sewage Treatment
Plant was brought to the property by Occidental at a cost of
$360,000. The contemplated use of this sewer line by Lusk and
Son in the development of Parcels 11, 12 and 13, and the reim-
bursement by other developers between the property set forth on
Exhibit A and the Encina Sewage Treatment Plant has been discussed
above.
E. EIRs And Offer Of Property For Sale
The Planning Director of the City of Carlsbad in a memorandum of
April 2^, 1973 * commenting on the Environmental Impact Report
for all of the property set forth on Exhibit A stated,
u . . . this report addresses the entire 360-acre
project in general terms, additional information
will be necessary to adequately assess individual
projects and their impacts. As each phase of the
project is submitted to the City, specific con-
sideration will be given to schools, public services,
design, etc. as they relate to this final Environ-
mental Impact Report."
For sale signs have been located on the property in view of Interstate
5 for many months. Occidental indicates in the letter of July 1,
1975* to the Office of the Attorney General that Occidental would
consider an offer to buy the land but that they feel that such an
offer will not be forthcoming without the right to develop the
property in accordance with the "master plan .
-8-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. July 30, 1975
III. ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
In ruling on Occidental's Claim of Exemption, it is necessary
to determine: • .,
1. Whether all required governmental approvals were
obtained prior to the effective date of the act;
2. Whether Occidental diligently commenced con-
struction and performed substantial work on the
development and incurred substantial liabilities -
for work and materials necessary therefor; and
3- Whether the concept of "interdependency" is
applicable.
A. Required Governmental Approvals
To obtain an exemption from the permit requirement of the Coastal
Act, a claimant must have acquired vested rights pursuant to final.
fovernmental approvals as of November 8, 1972. (Pub. Res. Code
27404.) To have a vested right, the claimant must show that it
has relied upon the final discretionary approvals of the local
government to which its development is subject, by diligently
commencing construction and performing substantial work on the
development and incurring substantial liabilities for work and
materials necessary therefor. (Pub. Res. Code § 27404.) Reliance
may only be shown through expenditures or work occurring after the
final governmental discretionary approvals. Aries Development_Cp.
v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com., 48 Gal. App. 3d 334,
539~(1975)•Expenditures for the purchase of land made in advance
of final governmental discretionary approval may not be considered
in determining whether substantial liabilities have been incurred
or construction has commenced. See Aries, Ibid.
The concept of vested rights is based upon the rationale that where
the government has authorized an action, and such action has been
taken in reliance on that authorization, it is unfair to permit the
government to then rescind its authorization or impose new require-
ments. If, however, the government has not given its final discre-
tionary authorization, a person who proceeds with a project on the
assumption that authorization will follow does so at his own risk.
In such a case, the government has not induced reliance, and there
is no unfairness in permitting it to change the standards for ob-
taining government authorization.
-9-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. July 30, 1975
In the present matter, Occidental relies principally upon the
"master plan" which was adopted by -the Carlsbad City Council in
late 1969- The effect of the City's approval of the "master
plan" was to increase densities in certain zones, and to rezone
certain portions of the property. Both the master plan and the
ordinance controlling development of planned community districts
within the City of Carlsbad require approval of tentative maps
and specific plans prior to construction of any development sub-
ject to the master plan.
Final governmental approval on the residential properties owned
by Occidental is far from being completed. At this date, neither
a tentative subdivision map nor specific plan has been approved
for Parcel 3. As to Parcel 1, tentative subdivision map approval
was obtained in September of 1974, but no specific plan has been
appr ov ed.
Although specific plans were adopted for the four commercial par-
cels (Parcels 4/5, 6/7, 8 and 9) prior to the effective date of
the Coastal Zone Conservation Act, approval of a tentative subdi-
vision map did not occur until the adoption of Tentative Map 71-2
in May of 1973- (Carlsbad City Council Resolution Ho. 3130.)
Since all discretionary governmental approvals were obtained long
after the November 8, 1972, effective date of the Coastal Zone
Conservation Act there was no governmental approval on which a
claim of vested rights can be based.
B. Commencing Construction and Performing
Substantial Work
Even if final discretionary governmental approvals had been granted
prior to November 8, 1972, the Claim of Exemption would fail be-
cause no construction or work has occurred on the parcels owned by
Occidental. The only construction which has occurred in regard to
the land presently owned by Occidental is the extension of sewers
to the property both east and west of Interstate 5- The sewer ex-
tension to the west of Interstate 5 was necessary for the develop-
ment of Parcel 10, a parcel owned by Sequoia Pacific, and the only
parcel on which construction has occurred.
To fulfill the need for commencing construction Occidental relies
on its "obligations" to developers and to the City of Carlsbad in
regard to bringing off-site improvements to parcels of property sold
by Occidental, and in regard to the dedication of property for school
and park purposes. The only indication of any such expenditures con-
tained in the material filed by Occidental are the extension of the
Encina sewer lines, the oversizing of the Alta Mira sewer lines and
the extension of a sewer line to the property east of Interstate 5-
-10-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. " July $0, 1975
The total expenditures for all of these properties were $420,000.
This amount must be considered in terms of the overall estimated
costs of development of all the property in Exhibit A of in excess
of 55 million dollars. (See Exhibit P to the Claim of Exemption.)
Further, these costs are reimbursable and were undertaken in part
for developers other than Occidental. If the completed construc-
tion cost claimed -by Occidental in Exhibit B to the Claim of
Exemption is reduced by the expenditures attributable to non-
Occidental parcels the total is reduced from $3*520,000 to a
maximum of $420,000 - and probably to a more realistic amount of
approximately $200,000. Also, the major cost of the Encina Sewer
extension will be reimbursed as development occurs west of Interstate
5 and between the Encina Sewage Treatment Plant and the property set
forth on Exhibit A.
The sole dedication of land which has occurred is an approximately
four-acre parcel. This dedication is tied at least partially to
approvals of projects owned by Lusk and Son. This dedication did
not occur until August 6, 1973> long after the effective date of
the Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative.
The obligation to construct the railroad overpass is based in part
on the development of parcels owned by Sequoia Pacific and Lusk and
Son. . The obligation to construct the overpass is dependent upon
Coastal Commission approval. The obligation to construct the over-
pass and many other so-called obligations are tied to various agree-
ments with the City of Carlsbad and may all be dependent upon whether
the projects contemplated are completed.
Any agreements to dedicate real property or construct the railroad
overpass were incurred in connection with obtaining the enactment
of an ordinance or issuance of permits in relation to contemplated
development of the property set forth on Exhibit A. Therefore, even
if such agreements were found to be binding on Occidental, the cost
of fulfilling such "obligations" are not deemed to be liabilities
for work and materials necessary to meet the vested rights criteria
of Public Resources Code section 27404 (see Pub. Res. Code § 27404).
C. Int erdep endency
Occidental claims that the entire project and each parcel within
it is dependent upon the development of every other parcel. While
any development of real property may be dependent to some extent
upon a neighboring parcel of real property, such a geographical
relationship does not create an interdependency within the legal
framework necessary to provide a vested right to complete construc-
tion. It is clear that portions of the property involved in this
-11-
All Commissioners
Re: Occidental Land, Inc. July 30, 1975
Claim of Exemption can be developed independently from other
portions of the property. The mobile home park on Parcel 10
has been completed and is operating at this time. No further
development has occurred.
One of the four parcels of commercial property was sought to be
developed separately from the specific plans previously filed on
such parcels. In connection with the Shopper's World's applica-
tion no additional modification of the specific plan of the re-
maining commercial property was sought.
In order to find interdependency, each portion of a project must
be necessary to the other portions so that the parts effectively
create a single project. In the present situation, no such facts
are present. Occidental and its purchasers have sought approval
of each parcel separately before the City of Carlsbad. Since the
adoption of zoning changes and increased densities by the "master
plan," every application to the City of Carlsbad has been on a
parcel by parcel basis.
Interdependency presumes that a portion of a project has been
developed which cannot properly function unless additional portions
of the project are completed. Occidental has not undertaken any
construction on the property set forth on Exhibit A. The only
construction which occurred was on the part of Sequoia Pacific.
Since no construction by Occidental has been completed, there cannot
be any project, dependent upon the developments which Occidental now
claims and exempted from the permit requirements of the Coastal Zone
Conservation Act.
CONCLUSION
Based on the facts set forth herein and in the Claim of Exemption
of Occidental, it is the opinion of the undersigned that the appli-
cant has not sustained the burden of proof necessary for an
exemption from the permit requirements of the Coastal Zone
Conservation Act.
_
ANTHONY C . JOSEPH
Deputy Attorney General
ACJ:alb
..;•'" \— . • '-}
LAW OFFICES OF
...... DAUBNEY, BANCHE, PATTERSON, NARES AND REED
_, A PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATIONWIU.1AM H. DAU.HIT AREA CODE 714
WCHOLA.C.BANCHE 7O2 FOURTH STREET ^rfU* fi.l^ > TJJLEPHONE 722-1331
JOKK*. PATTERN POST OFFICE BOX 33O
OILBCRT MARU • OCEANSTDE. CALIFORNIA 92064 ...» '
KENNETH K. DUO
°'''""" ' \]P~April 28, 1975
San Diego Coast Regional Commission
6154 Mission Gorge Road
Suite 220
San Diego, California 92120
Re: FX0137
Attention: Thomas A. Crandall
Dear Tom:
As a follow-up to our telephone conversation of
recent date with regard to the above-referenced matter,
please accept this letter as a formal amendment to
our application for exemption, in order to absolutely
clarify any misunderstanding which may exist with
regard to the property encompassed by the exemption.
Obviously, the application of Occidental Land,
Inc., can only affect land which that entity owns.
As a matter of fact, Exhibit "B" to the application
would seem to clearly set forth that some of the land
encompassed by the original H B Development Company
.plan has already been developed, or processed for permit,
Obviously, our application for exemption can in
no way affect the land owned by Covington Brothers,
nor the land owned by Sequoia Pacific, nor for that
matter, the land owned by anyone other than Occidental
Land, Inc.
While I understand that neither you nor myself
was confused by our application, nevertheless I did
want to provide this letter in order that no other
person might be confused.
As usual, your courtesy and cooperation are
appreciated.
Sincerely,
ECHOLAS C. BANCHE
NCB:lg