- 7 -
approvals” made by the City of Huntington Beach under the
“General Plan” with respect to a zoning variance for Phase I of
the project. The residents also contended that height
restrictions were violated and that the project did not promote
the general welfare of the neighborhood.
In a letter dated May 11, 1990, the attorney representing
the residents wrote a letter to the deputy city attorney for
Huntington Beach and the executive director of the California
Coastal Commission to inform the parties that the condominium
development project was in violation of the State of California’s
(State) public easement over patented tidelands.5 Soon after,
the State declared that the Phase I and II properties were
located on tidelands and were subject to a public trust easement
in favor of commerce, navigation, and fishing.
Because of the State’s claim regarding the public easement,
the closing of escrow was delayed. CDC requested that
petitioners further extend escrow past the September 1, 1990,
closing date. On September 5, 1990, Mr. Steinman referred the
State’s easement claim to First American Title Insurance Co.
(First American) for resolution under petitioners’ title
insurance policy, which had been issued April 2, 1979.
5 This letter also informed the parties that the
development project violated the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Act since the planned location of one of the buildings was
directly over the trace of an active earthquake fault. Such a
location is prohibited. This matter was resolved by CDC.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011