Letter: In Response to Doug Cortez’s Sept. 28 Letter

1
970

Doug Cortez purchased two separate parcels of land that were not connected. As shown on the County’s tract map, his properties were separated by a Platted Public Walk as defined and dedicated in the subdivision plan of 1923. That Platted Public Walk was accepted by City Council in 1945 as resolution 45-709.

When Doug bought the two lots, he started treating the public land as his own. Then he filed a partition with the city for “Abandonment of Right of Way.” Of course, the Temple Hills Community Association (THCA) opposed it. The board’s vote to oppose his Abandonment Request was unanimous.

Doug hired one of the most admired lawyers in town, Larry Nokes. With enough time, influence, and money, he was able to convince the city to abandon the public property and turn ownership over to him. Since THCA is a nonprofit organization, we were no match for Doug or Mr. Nokes.

Part of the reason we were concerned is historical. There once was a Temple Hills Community Park that is also part of the original subdivision plat, and was dedicated to public use, as the walkways were. This entire pedestrian-friendly network was still in active use into the 1950s as evidenced by aerial photos from the County Archivist Office. Eventually, the city was convinced to officially abandoned the public park land and let it fall into private hands.

The action of THCA was nothing personal. We respect Doug’s contributions to the community and as a neighbor. His combined lots are beautiful, but it is a bad precedence for the city to abandon the dedicated public land. Had Doug offered to negotiate a land swap with some other parcel that could serve a public purpose, or even agree to buy some playground equipment in exchange for the land he needed to connect his two parcels together, it would have undoubtedly brought him broader community acceptance of the transaction.

We are concerned that with enough time, influence, and money, other public interests in Laguna can be compromised.

Getting back to Doug’s point about Liberate Laguna, it appears that its creators are four mega-rich real estate developers. They have more money behind their PAC than any of the candidates.  Why would a consortium of real estate developers be spending so much money in Laguna on this campaign? Why would they feel the need to hire one of the best PR firms in California to develop a very slick website and roll this out for them?

For example, one of these developer’s downtown developments was able to maneuver an exemption of over 100 parking spots. Now Liberate Laguna is asking residents to build more parking structures. That makes Liberate Laguna look like a self-serving appendage of the real estate developers who control it.

David Raber, Laguna Beach

 

 

Share this:

1 COMMENT

  1. Although this matter has been settled, it is important to correct the many errors and omissions by Mr. Raber. Note 13 other parcel owners fought THCA’s misguided efforts to take our private property from us. During that period I offered to meet on my property with all the advocates. Only one agreed, Ron Chilcote. At that time, he acknowledged the “easement 2” parcels would never be developed as a pathway for countless reasons. All the others declined to meet and tour my property.

    It is a story over 100 yrs old starting with Joseph P. Thurston’s purchase of “Temple Hills” in 1918. In summary, his 1925-27 county approved maps contained many errors and omissions. In 1929, the highly litigated 1915 Map Act was replaced with the SD Map act of 1929. The dedications by Thurston were improper and invalid under the new Map Act. The word “walk” was an error that has never been replicated since. The dedications were not specific or in fee or easement. It was a mess. Thurston never uttered the word “pathways”. Chilcote invented it in late 90s. Thurston got the county to install utilities on all the “5 ft easements”. Thurston never relinquished title to the land even after his bankruptcies in the 1930s. In effect, the County accepted a “easement” for utilities but never public walkways. If those easement agreements existed, they were destroyed in 1936 when the county transferred control to the City.

    It is completely false to say I developed the “strip” “as my own”. 50 years ago the previous owner obtained encroachment permits to validate he would have access to both parcels and the easement, and have legal use of all the land. If the City intended “pathways”, they would effectively block vehicular access to my property which includes both parcels. Both parcels were developed in the 1945-47 period by one owner who enjoyed and operated the two parcels and the easement as a single family home. The original structures and the remodeled structures are all fully permitted by the City. Never once did the city say they has a right to public walkway.

    I did not hire Larry Nokes. A group of 7 property owners hired Nokes to help us with a “vacation application” following clear written instructions from the City Manager. Legally, the city cannot abandon real property it does not own. This followed public meetings chaired by the City Manager and senior staff. City Attorney issued 3 letters opining that ALL the “easements” were NOT owned by the City of Laguna Beach, in effect, warning the public not to trespass on the land. Under CA law the original land owner (Thurston) owns the land and such land reverts to the adjacent parcel owners. Thurston died in 1957. Subsequent to the final vacation (wrongfully called “abandonment”), we conducted a chain of title search with the help of the Orange County senior archivists. It confirms Thurston continued to own the strips (following his bankruptcies in the 1930s). In 1950s, Thurston sold one of his strips to the adjacent parcel owner, while retaining ownership of the others. He entered easement agreements with some utilities. There is overwhelming evidence that the strips are NOT public property. If anything, they are utility easements that may be illegal since written agreements cannot be found. Note: if easement agreements were signed, they were destroyed by the City in 1936 when the County transferred them to the City.

    It is physically impossible to walk on my strip and others without physical harm. Aerial photos in 1930s show power poles on these strips. Anyone walking there would encounter the poles and tension lines. So Cal Edison agreements prohibit public use. My property still has the anchor bolts and concrete foundations for those tension lines that spanned most of the strip. No city has ever accepted a dedication of a 5 ft strip for both above and below ground utilities and public walkways. Thurston and the City never intended this. In 1948, they proved it when Thurston purchased City owned Park property in Temple Hills for $1.00. No one in Laguna ever called these utility strips “walkways” until Ron Chilcote coined the term in the late 90s.

    Contrary to Raber’s implications, I am not a meg-developer or any kind of developer. Liberate Laguna has had nothing to do with this issue. The group using Mr. Nokes disbanded when the City said they wanted to focus first on Easement 2. We no longer needed Mr. Nokes. Mr. Nokes was very helpful but he was paid very little.

    Finally, the City did “abandon” any interest or title in the 5ft easements 1,2,3. Those that have sewer lines signed binding sewer access agreements between the land owners and the City. I have been the land owner since Joseph Thurston died. My tax parcel map shows my 5 ft strip and my taxes have never been delinquent.

    Mr. Raber raised the land swap notion with the City. Since this is not public property, the City advised me that a land swap would be illegal and make no sense. Mr. Raber and THCA leadership (most don’t live in Temple Hills) have advocated a fantasy project that is based on false and misleading information. It has wasted City staff time and taxpayer money for over 10 yrs. Temple Hills residents have abandoned THCA for all the obvious reasons.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here