A partner in the development company, Dean Isaacson, says the company will wait to see what happens with a related lawsuit currently before a state appellate court before deciding what to do next.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
A conflict that has seen its fair share of twists and turns took a step in a new direction at Monday’s City Council meeting when developer Trancas PCH agreed to drop its lawsuit that claimed county-approved tract maps granting it the right to build 52 town homes and 15 houses on Pacific Coast Highway, west of Trancas Canyon Road, were still valid. In exchange, the developer asked the city to agree it would not raise a statute of limitations argument to prevent Trancas PCH from refiling the lawsuit in the future.
Trancas PCH attorney Alan Block said after the meeting that the decision by the city and his client would pave the way for the two parties to negotiate a new settlement agreement. An appellate court invalidated an earlier settlement in September when it sided with the Trancas Property Owners Association, which represents property owners on Broad Beach, in a lawsuit it filed in response to the settlement.
Trancas Property Owners attorney John Bowman asked the council on Monday not to agree to Trancas PCH’s recent demand and drop the suit, preferring that it be allowed to continue so Trancas Property Owners can intervene.
“We believe we will be able to convince a court that these maps are expired, that there are no tract maps upon which to base the right to build 52 homes,” Bowman said.
But City Attorney Christi Hogin said it would be a risk to bring the issue before a judge, because he could rule that the developer did have the right to everything approved by the county prior to cityhood. And by allowing Trancas PCH to drop the lawsuit and go into discussions with the city on a new settlement, there was a better chance of getting something closer to the original one, which was for 32 town homes and a donation of 26.5 acres of open space to the city.
Last month, the three-judge panel on the Court of Appeal’s 2nd District agreed to rehear one issue in its ruling against the original settlement, whether the City Council violated the state’s open meeting law for local governments when it reached the settlement with Trancas PCH. The new ruling is expected by February. Since the court is not rehearing other issues it considered before rejecting the settlement, even a ruling in favor of the city would not put the settlement back into play.
But Block said the city and Trancas PCH would be able to begin negotiations on a new settlement after the court made its new ruling, using the court’s decision as the parameters.
“We want to work with the city to provide a project that will be a winner for everybody,” Block said.
His positive attitude was not shared by Dean Isaacson, a Trancas PCH partner, who would not project whether the developer will sit down with the city after the new ruling.
“We have to wait to know what the facts are after the Court of Appeal decision,” Isaacson said. “We can’t second guess until we have a decision.”
Isaacson would not rule out that his company’s next approach would be to pursue the 52 houses and 15 town homes, saying that if Trancas PCH succeeds in earning the right to do that, it would be the fault of Trancas Property Owners because it challenged the original settlement.
“They [Trancas Property Owners] have self-interest and nothing more,” Isaacson said. “They’re interested in stopping this [development] and that is it. They are not interested in what is good for the city.”
The only council member who did not approve the latest terms with Trancas PCH was Mayor Andy Stern. He said in an interview after the meeting that he felt the deal would accomplish nothing because Trancas Property Owners would likely file a suit against any new settlement between the city and Trancas PCH. Stern said he would prefer to give Trancas Property Owners an opportunity to intervene in the suit against the city, so its members could feel they got a chance to participate.