The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1976-11-16; City Council; 2027-4; Occidental Poinsettia Ln agreement.. -0 0 cy*"y oy C&FrSB ___A_I ~ ---_ -.-.^_--I ,_ ' * I' 1;1'.ti33: 3ep;r: ~ &-j c C . i%-k%y e)),!?= ______I_" -.___ _l___l__.___ -.----ll-.l-------.----- .-..-.-r(..-. ,_ , .- -.- --- ._... .---.- _--- .7i:"iG3i4DA BiLi NS ,% 20 22"- + $Y Nove&-e-zJL19.25- ..__ _.__ --..-..---..-. T">&y? F z yI-.l".--l- E 1.; j? j:i FL,'i'19PbE 5: 2' z c__^-..-- City Attornex- ________.__-_- $J$3j ai::t: c D Nyr /I l\.- -I OCCIDENTAL -- POINSETTIA LANE AGREEPIENT _____I_p. ..--- _____----....-__I .Statement of thz $is.j:t-c;~: _II_ _L_...l_lI. -, The City of Carlsbad is a party to a series of agreements providing for the construction of the Poinsettia Lane Bridge over the AT & SF Railroad. Pursuant to the July 1974 agreement between the City and Occidental in that regard, Occidental is obligated to use its best efforts to secure Coastal Commission approval for the project through either a permit or a claim of exemption. The permit option is foreclosed and Occidental has been pursuing their claim of exemption which was denied by the Commission. Litigat.ion ensued. We are in receipt of a Nemorandum of Decision, dated October 15, 1976, frog the San Diego Superior Court, ruling against Occidental's claim. A copy'0.f that decision is attached for your information. Occidental, through their attorneys, has requested that the While an appeal is possible, in view of the California.Supreme Court's decision in the Avco case, I am of the opinion that any further legal proceedings in this reqard would be futile. The City Elanager has indicated that he is conducting a staff review of the entire Occidental P.oinsettia Bridge matter an$. will be reporting to the Council in regards to the options available to us in the future. -: City Council find that they have satisfied their obligations. Exhibits Letter from Micholas C. Banche, dated October 20, 1976 Memorandum Decision (Occidental Land, Inc. v. S. D. Coast Region Commission, et al) Recommendation It is recommended that the Council, by motion, find that Occiden Petroleum has satisfied its obligations under Section 2 of the July 1974 agreement and that no further action is necessary in regards to pursuing the claim of exenption from Coastal Regulati based on efforts to establish vested rights arising from their master plan of 1970. (Council action page 2) e e *, ,' AGENDA BILL NO. 2027 - Supplement #4 Page-2 Council action 11-16-76 The Council agreed that Occidental Petroleum had satisfied obligations under Section 2 of the July 1974 agreement and no further action was necessary in regards to pursuing the exemption from Coastal Regulations. L% 0 a LAW OFFICES OF DAUBNEY, BANCHE, PATTERSON AND REED A PROF ES SION AL COR PO RATION AREA CODE 7 WILLIAM H DAUBNEY NICHOLAS C BANCHE 702 FOURTH STREET TELEPHONE 722 JOHN E PATTERSON KENNETH E REED JAMES A TESTA POST OFFICE BOX 390 OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNLA 32054 - m ”22 9% T;-q *k 4: October 20, 1976 3% ;Q q; ?a c J- fnz c.. 9- \? (7 ‘3 . <. 0 5y +< A \ r P -\ r ‘‘3 ybp,;, “r &y Vince Biondo City Attorney 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 <-J City of Carlsbad -,* ,/ RE: Occidental Land, Inc. vs. San Diego Coast Regional Commission, et a1 San Diego Superior Court Case N-6301 Dear Vince: Enclosed- herewith find a copy of the Memorandum Decision of Judge Orfield with regard to the above-referenced matter. The decision, while not favorable, was certainly not surprising. By means of this letter I would formally request that the City of Carlsbad relieve my client of further proceedings in the Court with regard to the establishment of vested rights arising from the !.laster Plan of January, 1970. In light of the decision of the California Supreme Court in Avco, I am of the strong opinion that to proceed further would be to engage in an exercise in futility. I would be more than happy to appear before the Council, if that be necessary, in order to reassert this position. Please advise. Sincerely, FL i” ., NICHOLAS c. BANCHE r NCB: jp encl. -rcLtyh---- . mf -- ----_ .-_.__.._-______.__ a %-. .. --, -- $ Sli RIC.. COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COU C SAN DIEGO ,w .- r. --. .... .-__- -~,L(.-2~-m P;- --: ---- COURT IFIEPOQTFA I hemitt N: "*E" . -. 1 N 6301 ! i j 4 cCNVENESA~ j laone ! ;. -.--.--------------.-I-. -----.. L- _. .._... . . - --* ___.._ __ ______ ________ __ - I._ !DATE JUDGE 'HON. PKANKLIid 13, OHFX'SLD ----..- -.---_ ~___ -_____ _- _._ ___ .- r __ - - - --- - ; I\TTORUEV FOR i L -.-.------.----__. QCCZDl3NTAL LANU 2 .___ Isdc' 2 __...__..____ ;.____x -3AXm-.zm ~%E1GIQ~~aTeL.-c~~i$~.-B.t ! --al____. ANTiIOHY ________ e. _____ JOSEPH ___ CmCher 2&._14_26_ _____.__ - - ___.__ PL.C ~.-:FF,~?ST:TIONEQ 1 -.- .__..--_.. - L-4 ;;EFE~3A~T'QESPON@E~T :ATTORI*EI F __ - ..-. - .. PILXNG lW4O!iXMi)U 14 D EC I SI c" . --- --- -----____---- --- -- -- .--.-.-- .-. - __._..._..-.--...._._-...___. ...- ._.._._ ____.. ...-. . __ .. -. . 4mE 4BCL'E MATER CAME Chi FOR t4EQRINC. THIS DATE WITH ABOVE APPEARANCES AFTER HEARINL THC CrjUHT ;hUEfiED .riil >- El TRANS TO DEP7 __.._ .--.. .. -... 5 OFF CALEFvDAR c CONTINUED TC: -. - p GGANTED D POND c DENIED 0 STIPULATED ORDER : - ' TAKEN UNDER StrBMlSSlGN !-- -. I - Jg'DGMENT DECjTOR _-______.____.-.._______.________~__ ___________..___ S'~~L.C~?N AN 3 DEMURREF z Si:ST.4ir\tED ____--__ DAYS TO g AMEND E W!O LEAVE - .. I ------- . , ----- , ..--.-... - ,-. CAii b€ 5 _.__ __ , ____ ___ , __.._ .. GROUNDS ---__------ -.--__.-_.______._-___ ____.______ __. -. _______._.. . .. -.- . ----- --.------ -- -- ---- __ ._-__. - . ______..- ~ .____.____._. ___ ____.._... ___ .,. . . __ - .. c? OVERRULED _______ __~ __.. -.____ DAYSTO 9 ANSWEP .. F .- NOT!CE OF RCILING is WAIVED IN OPEN COURT .. OTYER. At this tw the cow files its Memoradm Dec1-L a QA deny% Petition for iq~ti of l.ianciate, and dfschagiw'thg QecisPon sent this &ate to each counsel with a.@fk'S &terna~;ive nitr Copy of thin hfiRUtE3 Order d bIWlf3r~~ Certificate of L'iervice by MaiL r MINUTES CAL. NG. P3"U 2t.l t3 ti*.. 7-70 Il3-r 0 0 .;. - - - t. ’ /e . I1 I I! I! I 6 11 li SU29F.IOR COUK’? OF CALIFORlu’IA, COU’:.iTsI OF Sty! DLE(;s I: 9 i! 11 IC OCCTEENTAL LAND, IEC - , 1 NC). X-6301 11 1 Petitioner, 1 1 12 !: vs - ) 13 ii SAX DIEGO COAST REGIONAL 1 il COW?lISSION, an agency of 1 !I CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE 1 15 11 COXSERVATION COMMISSION, ) 16 1; of Califorcis, 1 /i 1 17 il Respondsnts. 1 1 I! ~ . 11 __ --_ 11 i! 1; 1 14 ij the State of California; 1 MEYO R%NT?UM DEC i S I ON 1, ---____ __ ]! an ac;ency of the State 18 I! 1; 19 i: The petition for writ of mandate in the above-entitlee matt( ii 20 1: on regularly for hearing in Department Four of the above-entitlec 21 I/ on February 27, 1976, the Honorable Franklin B. Orfield, Judqe pi !i il 22 /! pe:itioner appearing 5.4’ Daubney, Banche, Patterson and Reed, by I 23 jj C. Banche, and respondents appearing by Evelle J. Younger, Attori General, by Anthony C. Joseph, Deputy Attorney General. The mati was argued and submitted and the Court makes its decision as foi: In late 1969, petitioner ’ s predecessor petitioned for anri--xi 1; !’ !. < -1- - .. 1 2 3 4l 5 6 l/ 0 0 of some 383 acres to the City of Carlsbad, which property is tht subject of this petition, and sought approval of a Master Devel The City of Carlsbad resolved by ordina the said Master Plan in January 1970. The petitioner purchased 1 project site from its predecessor in 1971 at a cost of 5.6 mill dollars. 1 Plan for said acreage. i 7 8 9 10 That prior to November 8, 1972, petitioner expended approx $390,000 in actual physical improvements on the said property. successor in interest, Sequoia Pacific, spent in excess of one dollars in physical improvements to the said land in accordance I l8 19 ' 1 Conservation Act, Public Resources Code Section 27,000 et seq. the petitioner from the provisions of the California Coastal Z( i : - I _' I 2 3 4 5 6 -: m 0 2. Whether there is interdependency of each portion of the project upon every other portion. 3. Whether the petitioner has irrevocably dedicated proper in accordance with the intent of the Master Plan or will be liab to do so in the future. On the basis of the "Master Plan" of the propert-y in guesti 7 the petitioner has expended some $390,000 for water and sewer li 8 9 11 lo , to service the mobile home project of Sequoia Pacific and certai other acreage subsequently purchased by others. Petitioner's successor in interest, in accordance with the Master Plan, expen I a sum in excess of one million dollars developing the first phas D 13 14 15 16 Even if it were established that petitioner could rely on the co of its successor in interest to create an estoppel, which I feel would be inappropriate, there appears to be no interdependency b the mobile home portion of the project and the plans for the bal 18 IT I The doctrine of "vested rights" whether under common law or 19 codified in Public Resources Code Section 27404 is essentially b 23 /latter to substantially alter his position to his detriment, the 26 /phases of the development may constitute the final discretionary _i . * 1 2 3 4 5 6 , 7 8 e a 1- approval upon which the developer may justifiably rely even thougl that approval may not be in the form of a "building permit". Howt in this case we do not have final discretionary approval on any phase except the mobile home portion of the project. Unquestionably, the City of Carlsbad would have much to say about the details of construction of the buildings and other impr ments in the several phases of the project in question. In view the insubstantial nature of the work completed by the petitioner, 9 10 11 12 City of Carlsbad would not be estopped from significantly changin the content of the Master Plan. Likewise, petitioner was not boL on November 8, 1972, to complete any portion of the said project. The petitioner herein claims certain obligations relative tc railroad overpass. The obligation of petitioner is subject to 14 15 16 77 18 19 20 21 ?2 ~3 'I3 approval of "all appropriate governmental agencies" - It should-l: noted that San Diego Coast Regional Commission has denied a permi to construct such railroad overpass. I I 1 The only evidence of any dedication of property to the City Carlsbad is a dedication made on August 6, 1973, of a parcel I lapproximately 300 feet by 580 feet at the northeast corner of I Poinsettia Lane and an extension of Batiquitios Drive. Apparent' 'this property was dedicated in connection with approval of develc jments which were to be undertaken either by Lusk and. Son on Parct 11, 12 or 13 or by Covington on Parcel 2, neither of which were - I 1 ,- 8 9 - “Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ‘ 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ;i * e 0 .- any development of property owned by Occidental has occurred to For the reasons indicated, the Petition for Writ of Mandate denied and the alternative writ discharged; have a vested right to proceed with its developments without obt a Coastal Permit. the petitioner does Dated: October , 1976. Judge of the Superior Cor * 1 r -5- I - a 0 . I- '3 c Superior court of the Skte a€ Californfca FOR TKE CQUI4TY OF SAN DIECO h' 6301 OCCIDENTAL LAW, INC. Case No. vs SAN DIEGO COAST REGIORAL CGi&IISSION, I HEREBY CERTIFY: I am not a parry to the ca!.:se referred to herein. On the date as shown below, at San Diqo: .Califn,.rnia7 1 p&c& -? TTE r*n~r --r7 of Xsxayandux Decision an3 Xinufves the original/a copy of which is artached hereto, in a separate envelope addressed to each addressee as listed below and each enveiope was rhen sealed and deposited ifi the imil -. \i.i:h the postage fu31y prepaid: 1- :'?r. Nichoizs C. Banche AtLorney ZL Lac ;;eubney, Ssiiche, Pakterson and Xeed /a2 2'ourth SLreet Oceanside, California 92.3-54 -., - 1. i.r. Anthony C. Joseph Eeputy Attcrn~y General 110 West A Street, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 , --{QE>;-;;.LT j) . Lv;.;,':;:LT . . -- ,:- F ,- . -, - r , . , ,. 2 .-.. ::fsL ?...^A .. :?c;cber 15: 1.975 -. LcL: _. -.-. ~ -..- . . .~ C7jL.i-k <,f [.he sz;)Fl-i<Jr c:, ,!x: .. - - . __ . . - ~~c,yf's ^I r-n, ICE~-[~F[CA~'F f.r c.::?!'. - - \..I -.-,\riC~ ZY !'..2iL (C.C.;J. 'frJiZ,cl?j Fr.- 25: .Tr 1 - .;.-: :..,