HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-2169 - The Koll Company Litigation (OCSC No. 326876)-1,
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Office of
CITY ATTORNEY
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
From: City Attorney
Subject: The Koll Company v. City of
Newport Beach, et al.
0
June 9, 1980
As the Council is aware, the Koll Company lawsuits, both state
and federal, have been resolved. However, as a final act by
the Council, a formal resolution of the City Council should be
adopted rescinding that portion of Resolution No. 9689 as it
relates to the Koll Center parcel, Site No. 1.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution
rescinding that portion of Resolution No. 9689 relating to Site .
No. 1, Koll Center. Once the resolution has been adopted, a
certified copy will be transmitted to the court as the City's
"return" on the Writ of Mandamus which has been entered in this
case. This should be the last official act of the City to honor
the Peremptory Writ of Mdandate entered on May 28, 1980, command-
ing the City to satisfy those portions of General Plan Amendment
No. 79 -1, Resolution No. 9689, which relate to Site No. 1, Koll
Center Newport. For the Council's information a copy of the
Peremptory Writ of Mandate filed May 28 is attached to this
memorandum.
Attachment
Hugh R. qoffin l
X
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
O'MELVENY & MYERS
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 760 -9600
FILE®
MAY 2 8 1980
LEE A. BRANCH, County Clerk
By ----Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
THE KOLL COMPANY, et al.
Petitioners and
Plaintiffs,
VS.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
et al.,
Respondents
and Defendants
Case No. 326876
PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF MANDATE
To City of Newport Beach, City Council of Newport Beach,
and Planning Commission of Newport Beach, Respondents:
Upon stipulation of the parties, through their respec-
tive counsel, judgment has been entered in this proceeding
ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate issue under the
seal of this Court.
THEREFORE, you are commanded, immediately upon receipt
of this writ, to set aside those portions of General Plan Amend-
. `I
r ')
l
r 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M r
ment 79 -1, Resolution No. 9689, of the City of Newport Beach
which relate to Site No. 1 consisting of Koll Center Newport
and to follow the previously existing General Plan as to Koll
Center Newport until such time as amendments to said General
Plan are validly adopted.
WITNESS the Honorable
Judge of the Superior Court.
DATED: MAY 2 A 1980
LEE A. BP,,W: ! 3 Clerk
By C1il;lciii�i. �;;�I`vV1�01 Deputy
THIS INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
ON FILE IN THIS OFFIC
I. 2 8 193
ATTEST:
LEE A. BRANCH
County Clerk and Clerk of the
Suppnor Court Ot the State of California
/i0nd for the County of Orange
BY PUTY
4P 0 P"'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH RESCINDING THAT PORTION OF
RESOLUTION NO. 9689 WHICH ADOPTED GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 79 -1, AS THAT RESOLUTION
RELATES TO SITE NO. 1, KOLL CENTER NEWPORT
WHEREAS, on December 10, 1979, the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution No. 9689 entitled
"A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
Accepting the Environmental Document and Approving Amendments
to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open
Space Elements of the General Plan (Amendment No. 79 -1) "; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1980, The Koll Company filed
a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory
Relief relating to Site No. 1, Koll Center Newport; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach approved a Settlement Agreement with The Koll Company
on May 12, 1980; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 1980, pursuant to said Agreement,
Judgment was entered in said action and a Peremptory Writ of
Mandate was issued by the court,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach that, pursuant to said Settlement
Agreement, Judgment and Writ of Mandate, those portions of Reso-
lution No. 9689 which relate to Site No. 1, Koll Center Newport,
are hereby set aside and the previously existing General Plan
terms and conditions as they relate to Koll Center Newport shall
be followed until such time as amendments to said General Plan
of the City of Newport Beach are validly adopted.
ADOPTED this � day of _4 U/pLL� , 1980.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
-2-
HRC /kv
6/2/80
A. W. RUTAry IIBeO -IBTLI
JA NEE B. TUCKER, SR.
IIBe G -19501
MILFORD W
R 0. KID MAN
O.. ER ..WELL
MICHAEL O. RU BIN
JAMES B. TUCKER
MARC WINTHROP
C ANY IN F, SHALLENBERGER
IRA G. RIVIN
JAHE5 R. MORE
JEFFREY M. OBERMAN
.BERT L. RIBLEY
WILLIAM H. KEISER
.ONER L. MCCORMICN JR.
RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD
..WARD F nARRI50N
E. S. WOLCOTT. M
AMES E. ERICKSON
ROBERT L. PIKE
WILLIAM P BIEL
ROBERT S. BOWER
RICHARD A. CURNUTT
MARCIA A. FORSYTH
LE ONARO A MPEL
WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA
JOHN B. HURLBUT. JR.
THOMAS A PISTONE
MIC.AEL W MMELL
LAWRENCE J. OREYFU55
.ILFORO W
NE NELSON LANPHAR
.E O.. RE LACE. JR.
ERIC O. LIPOFF
RIC.AI. P, SINS
E. KURT YEA.ER
ROBERT C. BRAUN
REP. C. STONE
ROGER A. GRABLE
WILLIAM J. CAPLAN
EDWARD O. SYBESMA.J
M. LAPS
T HONAS 5. SA41I.CF
DIANE L. OOUOLAS
ARRY R. LAUBSC.EY
.ILIP D. KOHN
OA VIO C. LwgSEN
FOCI E. KUPERBERO
A. CIL N .I.N
H
ELIZABET A. NEALE
CLIFFORD E! FgIEOEN
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING
401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
POST OFFICE BOX 1975
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
TELECOPIER 17141 568 -1566
(714) 635 -2200
May 2, 1980
Honorable City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
Re: Settlement of The
of Newport Beach,
Court No. 326876
36
NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE
GIO NEWPC ITT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 900
POST OFFICE BOX 7369
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
TELECOPIER MA) 759-8993
VI41 759-0833
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
GiTY ;:OuNCI 7 / /
Koll Company v. City
Orange County Superior
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
On April 7, 1980, I appeared in Department 22 before
the Honorable Judge Oretta Sears representing the City
of Newport Beach along with your City Attorney, Mr. Hugh
Coffin. Trial was commenced in the above- entitled matter.
After the record had been presented and all briefs submitted
Judge Sears indicated that her tentative ruling was against
the City of Newport Beach on the procedural aspects con-
cerning the noticing of the negative declaration relating
to General Plan Amendment 79 -1, During the noon break,
prior to resuming argument in the matter, a settlement
offer was presented by Mr, Tim Strader of the Koll Company.
That afternoon Judge Sears continued the trial to May 15,
1980 to, among other things, allow counsel the opportunity
to consider the settlement offer.
On Tuesday, April 29, 1980, I appeared in Chambers
before Judge Oretta Sears along with your City Attorney,
attorneys Ralph Dau and Ms. Lisa Hill Fenning with the
law firm of O'Melveny & Myers representing the Koll Company
and Mr. Tim Strader of the Koll Company. The purpose of
the meeting was to discuss the settlement proposal.
} RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Honorable City Council
May 2, 1980
Page Two
During the meeting in Chambers the following proposal
was outlined: that General Plan Amendment 79 -1 be invali-
dated only as to Koll Center Newport (Site 1) and that it
be preserved as to all other sites consisting of some
fifteen in number; that all parties bear their own costs
and that the Koll Company dismiss with prejudice its
Federal action against the City and certain named council -
persons, along with the execution of mutual releases to
preclude any further litigation. As to the Koll site the
City would remain completely free to at any time consider
additional general plan amendments and zoning actions on
the site including, but not limited to, the granting or
denying of a use permit for a hotel.
I advised Judge Sears that we would like to obtain
her recommendation concerning the proposed settlement.
Judge Sears was concerned, however, that the case be in a
posture so that she could make a public recommendation on
this proposed settlement. This could be done either by her
taking the case under submission or by all parties stipula-
ting that she may be both settlement judge and trial court
judge. I stated we would so stipulate. She indicated her
very strong support for this resolution of the matter
emphasizing that it was consistent with her tentative
ruling. She believed the settlement was in the public
interest since it concluded all litigation together with
attendant expenses, preserved the discretion of the City
Council to make all future decisions relating to both the
general planning and zoning approvals on the site without
interference and avoided further disputes with respect to
General Plan Amendment 79 -1. She was indeed willing to
execute all necessary judgments and writs to effectuate
the settlement that very afternoon.
After we informed Judge Sears that we did not have
authority to effectuate the settlement at that time, our
meeting on April 29, 1980, was concluded. Judge Sears left
very little doubt that at the conclusion of trial, her
judgment would probably run against the City, thus exposing
the City to the possibility of costs and attorneys fees.
She believed, however, that settlement was preferable.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER
LAH:loh
1
•
•
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
E7
EI
10',
11
121
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL C. Gift
TIM PAONE
SUSAN W. HALDEMAN
Members of the Law Firm of
VIRTUE & SCHECK,.INCORPORATED
17 Corporate Plaza Drive
P. O. Box 2950
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 644 -9030
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
go
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT'OF CALIFORNIA
THE KOLL COMPANY, a California )
corporation; and AETNA LIFE )
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut)
corporation, )
j
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PAUL )
RYCKOFF; RAY E. WILLIAMS; j
EVELYN R. HART; PAUL G. HUMMEL; )
and DONALD A. STRAUSS, )
Defendant's.
Case No. CV -80 -00510 RMT (Kx)
STIPULATION TO DISMISSAL
Pursuant to the settlement entered into by the parties to
this action, the parties, through their, respective counsel of
record, stipulate that this action shall be dismissed with
prejudice. As provided in the Settlement Agreement and Release
between the parties, each of the parties shall bear its, his, or
her own costs and attorneys' fees.
Dated: , 1980. .VIRTUE & SCHECK, INCORPORATED
By
MICHAEL C. GERING
TIM PAONE
Attorneys for The.Koll
Company and Aetna Life.
Insurance Company
r'
1 Dated:
2
3
• 5
Dated:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 i
21
i
22
23
24
• 25
26
27
28 1
1980, RUTAN & *OR
By .
LEONARD A. HAMPEL
Attorneys for the City
of Newport Beach
1980. WENKE, TAYLOR, EVANS & IKOLA
By
RAYMOND J. IKOLA
Attorneys for the
Council Members
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1980.
ROBERT.M. TAKASUGI
Judge of the United States
District Court
-2-
•
•
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Agreement ") is
entered into by and between the following parties:
1. The Koll Company, a California corporation ( "Koll ");
2. Aetna Life Insurance Company, a Connecticut corporation
( "Aetna ");
3. The City of Newport Beach, California ( "Newport ");
.4. Paul Ryckoff ( "Ryckoff ");
5. Ray E. Williams ( "Williams ");
6. Evelyn R. Hart .( "Hart ");
7. Paul L. Hummel ( "Hummel "); and
8. Donald A. Strauss ( "Strauss ").
Koll, Aetna, Newport, Ryckoff, Williams, Hart, Hummel, and
Strauss will collectively be referred to within this Agreement as
the "Parties."
RECITALS
i
A. Koll and Aetna along with others are the owners and
developers of certain real property located in the City of Newport
Beach, California, commonly known as Koll Center Newport (the
"Property ").
B. Newport is a charter city of the State of California.
Ryckoff, Williams, Hart, Hummel, and Strauss are now, or at some
times since 1976 have been, members of the City Council of Newport
(the "Council Members ").
C. A
resolutions,
• during the t
Koll, Aetna,
involves the
M
dispute has arisen with respect to certain ordinances,
and policies adopted and /or established by Newport
=rms of office of the Council Members which impact upon
and /or the Property (the "Dispute "). The Dispute
Council Members in both their individual and official
capacities. The Dispute includes, but is not .limited to, the
adoption by Newport, through the action of the Council Members, of
Newport's General Plan Amendment 79 -1 ( "GPA 79 -111).
D. An action with respect to the Dispute has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.and is entitled "The Koll Company, etc., et al. v. City
of Newport Beach, et al." (the "Federal Action "). The Federal
Action bears Case No. 80- 00510RMT(Kx).
E. A mandate proceeding arising from the Dispute has been
filed in Orange County Superior Court and is entitled "The Koll
Company, etc., et al. v. City of Newport Beach, et al." (the
"State Action "). The State Action bears Case No. 326876.
F. This Agreement is executed concurrently with and is
conditioned upon settlement of the State Action which consists of
a stipulation to judgment requiring the invalidation of GPA 79 -1
insofar as it might apply to the Property.
G. The Parties desire that the Federal Action be terminated
and resolved without further legal proceedings, thus avoiding the
inconvenience, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the foregoing recitals and of the covenants
-2-
71
•
7J
M
and conditions set forth below, the Parties respectively agree as
follows:
1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are incorporated
by this reference as a part of the Agreement between the Parties.
2. DISMISSAL BY KOLL AND AETNA. Concurrently with the
execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall execute a stipulation
to dismissal providing for the dismissal with prejudice of the
Federal Action by Koll and Aetna.
3. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES
Each of the Parties shall
bear its, his or her own costs and attorneys' fees incurred as a
result of the Federal Action. This paragraph 3 is not intended,
however, to impair, release, or cancel any agreement between co-
plaintiffs or co- defendants for the sharing, contribution, or
indemnification of attorneys' fees and costs as between co- plaintiffs
and co- defendants, it being the intent hereof that plaintiffs shall
not be liable for defendants' fees and costs and defendants shall
,not be liable for plaintiffs' fees and costs.
4. WAIVER OF APPEAL RIGHTS. The Parties expressly waive
any.right to appeal any judgment or order in the Federal Action.
5. RELEASES.
(a) Except for the obligations created by and the
rights expressly reserved within this Agreement, Koll and Aetna
release and discharge Newport and the Council Members and their
respective officials, employees, representatives, agents, attorneys,
assigns, and successors from any and all rights, claims, and actions,
known or unknown, which Koll and /or Aetna may have with respect to
the Federal Action, the State Action, or the Dispute.
r -3-
C;
4P
M
(b) Except for the obligations created by and the
rights expressly reserved within this Agreement, Newport and the
Council Members release and discharge Koll and Aetna and their
respective stockholders, directors, officers, employees, repre-
sentatives, agents, attorneys, assigns, and successors from any
and all rights, claims, and actions, known or unknown, which
Newport and /or any of the Council Members may have with respect
to the Federal Action, the State Action, or the Dispute.
6. WAIVER OF UNKNOWN CLAIMS. It is understood by each of
the Parties that Section-1542 of the Civil Code of California
provides as follows:
"Section 1542. [Certain claims not affected by
general release.] A general release does not
extend to claims which the creditor does not
know or suspect to exist in his favor at the
time of executing the release, which if known
by him must have materially affected his
settlement with the debtor."
Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California is waived by
each of the Parties.
7. FACTUAL DIFFERENCES. Each of the Parties understands
and accepts the risk that the facts with respect to which this
Agreement is entered into may be different from the facts now
known or believed by each such party to be true. This Agreement
shall remain in all respects effective and shall not be subject
to termination or rescission by virtue of any such difference in
tofact, absent a showing of intentional fraud by any of the Parties
in inducing any other to enter into this Agreement.
8. REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL. Each of the Parties has been
-4-
•
•
4P
M
represented by counsel in entering into this Agreement. Each of
the Parties affirms to the other that it has consulted and
discussed the provisions of this Agreement with its counsel and
fully understands the legal effect of each such provision.
9. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, successors,
assigns, and personal representatives of the Parties.
10. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. Except as set forth in Recital F
above, this Agreement is entered into by each of the Parties
without reliance upon any statement, representation, promise,
inducement, or agreement not expressly contained within this
Agreement. This Agreement and such agreements as are executed
in settlement of the State Action constitute the entire agreement
between the Parties and supersede all prior oral or written.
agreements concerning the settlement of all claims between the
Parties related to the Federal Action or the Dispute.
11. MODIFICATION. This Agreement shall not be amended or
modified except in a writing signed by each of the Parties
affected by such amendment or modification.
12. ATTORNEYS' FEES. If any action at law or equity is
necessary to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.
13. WARRANTY OF NON - ASSIGNMENT. Each of the Parties
warrants that it has neither actually nor purportedly assigned or
transferred to any person not a party to this Agreement all or any
portion of any released matter
41
Each of the Parties agrees to
-5-
,t
indemnify and hold harmless each of the others from and against
any claim, damage, liability, or action arising from any such
actual or purported assignment or transfer, including the payment
of attorneys' fees and costs actually incurred, whether or not
litigation is actually commenced.
14. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. The Parties agree to execute any
and all additional documents reasonably necessary to complete and
document this transaction.
15. :NEGOTIATED TRANSACTION. The drafting and negotiation
of this Agreement' has been participated in by each of the Parties
For all purposes, this Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted
jointly by each of the Parties.
16. NO INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN. The undersigned further
understand and agree that the execution of this Settlement and Release
shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of any obligation
or liability, or of the validity of any claim whatsoever, or of the
truth of the allegations made in the Federal Action, the defendants
in the Federal Action having each consistently taken the position
that the material allegations made by the plaintiffs are untrue,
and that'the defendants have no obligation or liability whatsoever
to the plaintiffs, or either of them.
Dated: 1980. THE KOLL COMPANY
MN
Name
Title
Dated: 1980. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
By
Name
Title
IF _..r,_
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
VIRTUE & SCHECK, INCORPORATED
By
MICHAEL C. GERING
TIM PAONE
Attorneys for The Kell
Company and Aetna Life
Insurance Company
Dated: 1980.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
RUTAN & TUCKER
BY
LEONARD A. HAMPEL
Attorneys for the
City of Newport Beach
Dated: . 1980.
Dated: , 1980.
Dated: , 1980.
Dated: , 1980.
Dated: , 1980.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
WENKE, TAYLOR, EVANS & IKOLA
By
RAYMOND J. IKOLA
Attorneys for the
Council Members
M
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
By
Name
Title
PAUL RYCKOFF
RAY E. WILLIAMS
EVELYN R. HART
PAUL L. HUMMEL
DONALD A. STRAUSS
r -7-
11
2
3
• 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
• 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
O'MELVENY & MYERS
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 760 -9600
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
THE KOLL COMPANY, et al.
Petitioners and
Plaintiffs,
VS.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
et al-,
Respondents
and Defendants.
Case No. 326876
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT GRANTING
PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF MANDATE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between petitioners
The Koll Company and Aetna Life Insurance Company and Respon-
dents City of Newport Beach, City Council of Newport Beach,.
and Planning Commission of Newport Beach, through their respec-
tive counsel, that Judgment in the above entitled cause
1
i
1�
granting a peremptory
writ of mandate in the form attached
hereto be entered
to this stipulation.
2i
may
pursuant
3
' • 4
5
DATED: May i, 1980
6
RUTAN & TUCKER
LEONARD A. HAMPEL
7
MARC WINTHROP
ROBERT S. BOWER
8
HUGH R. COFFIN, City Attorney
9
ROBERT H. BURNHAM,
Assistant "City Attorney
10
11
By
Leonard A. Hampel
12
Attorneys for Respondents
13
• 14
1980
DATED: May ,,
15
O'MELVENY & MYERS
16
RALPH W. DAU
LOWELL C. MARTINDALE
17
LISA HILL FENNING
18
By
19
Ralph W. Dau
Attorneys for Petitioners
20
21
22
23
• 24
25
26
27
28�I
2
4
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
13
14
15
16
17
1s!
19
20
21.
221
23
2411
2511
26
27
28
� M
O'MELVENY & MYERS
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 760 -9600
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
THE KOLL COMPANY, et al.
Petitioners and
Plaintiffs,
VS.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
et al.,
Respondents
and Defendants.
Case No. 326876
JUDGMENT GRANTING
PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF MANDATE
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, through
their respective counsel of record,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. A peremptory writ of mandate issue under the
seal of this Court in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A,
commanding respondents City of Newport Beach, City Council
r
4
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9'.
10.
111
12
1311
14
15
16'
17
18''
19
20'
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of Newport Beach
to set aside those portions of General Plan Amendment 79 -1,
Resolution No. 9689, of the City of Newport Beach which relate
to Site No. 1 consisting of Koll Center Newport and to follow
the previously existing General Plan as to Koll Center
Newport until such time as amendments to said General Plan
are validly adopted.
DATED:
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Judge of the Superior Court
1
2
• 3
� 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
! 11
12
13
i 14
h "
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
• 24
25
26
27
28
O'MELVENY & MYERS
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 760 -9600
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
THE KOLL COMPANY, et al.
Petitioners and
Plaintiffs,
VS.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
et al.,
Respondents
and Defendants.
Case No. 326876
PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF MANDATE
To City of Newport Beach, City Council of Newport Beach,
and Planning Commission of Newport Beach, Respondents:
Upon stipulation of the parties, through their respec-
tive counsel, judgment has been entered in this proceeding
ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate issue under the
sale of this Court.
THEREFORE, you are commanded, immediately upon receipt
of this writ, to set aside those portions of General Plan Amend-
EXHIBIT A
•
•
r'
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,
23;
24
25
26
27I28
M
ment 79 -1, Resolution No. 9689, of the City of Newport Beach
which relate to Site No. 1 consisting of Koll Center Newport
and to follow the previously existing General Plan as to
Koll Center Newport until such time as amendments to said
General Plan are validly adopted.
WITNESS the Honorable
Judge of the Superior Court.
DATED:
0
By
Clerk
Deputy
` � J
1 _ 1
2
3
4
5
i
6
7
8
9
10
111
12i
13'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
O'MELVENY & MYERS
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 760 -9600
E
M�,� L r
ra i�-
mAY 2.8 1980
LEE A. BRAKH, County Clerk
Vy cp -'J
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
THE KOLL COMPANY, et al. )
Petitioners and )
Plaintiffs, )
VS. )
)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, )
et al., )
Respondents )
and Defendants. )
Case No. 326876.
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT GRANTING
PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF MANDATE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between petitioners
The Koll Company and Aetna Life Insurance Company and Respon-
dents City of Newport Beach, City Council of Newport Beach,
and Planning Commission of Newport Beach, through their respec-
tive counsel, that Judgment in the above entitled cause
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I
28
granting a pewtory writ of mandate Ate form attached
hereto may be entered pursuant to this stipulation.
DATED: May _, 1980
DATED: May /3, 1980
RUTAN & TUCKER
LEONARD A. HAMPEL
MARC WINTHROP
ROBERT S. BOWER
HUGH R. COFFIN, City Attorney
ROBERT H. BURNHAM,
Assistant City Attorney
By ,
L nard Al m e
Attorneys for Respondents
O'MELVENY & MYERS
RALPH W. DAU
LOWELL C. MARTINDALE
LISA HILL FENNIING
By �d�GG�rizil�
Ralph W. Dau
Attorneys for Petitioners
E
.M.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
n
O'MELVENY & MYERS
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 760 -9600
El
FILE®
MAY 2 81980
LEE A BRANCH, County Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
THE KOLL COMPANY, et al.
Petitioners and
Plaintiffs,
Vs.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
et al.,
Respondents
and Defendants.
Case No. 326876
JUDGMENT GRANTING
PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF MANDATE
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, through
their respective counsel of record,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. A peremptory writ of mandate issue under the
seal of this Court in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A,
commanding respondents City of Newport Beach, City Council
1
■f
I�
11
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of Newport Bea and Planning Commission Newport Beach
to set aside those portions of General,Plan Amendment 79 -1,
Resolution No. 9689, of the City of Newport Beach which relate
to Site No. 1 consisting of Roll Center Newport and to follow
the previously existing General Plan as to Roll Center Newport
until such time as amendments to said General Plan are validly
adopted.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
DATED: M",/ -� S,/ i y u
/r
(JrcCt =' I r: S �,,rS
/ Judge of the Superior Court
2
r
M 40
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Contract No. 2169, 2,17n z 2L
Description of Contract r.ifinafirm
CALIFORNIA
City flan
3300 W. Newport Blvd.
Area Code 714
DATE Mardi 31, 1980
Authorized by Resolution No. CjjX Maua=r , adopted on
Effective date of Contract 3/24/80
Contract with Ratan & Tacker, Attorneys at Law
Address 401 Civic Center Drive west, p.o. Box 1976
Santa Ana, California 92702
Amount of Contract see contracts
Alo-� Lt.-I'g 0-
City Clerk
40
40
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
(714) 640 -2251
March 31, 1980
Rut:an & Tucker, Attorneys at Law
401 Civic Center Drive [lest
P.O. Box.1976
Santa Ana, CA 92702
re: The Roll am parry v. City of Newport Beach
The Kali Ocn, ,y v. City. of Newport Beach,
et al M= 32-68-74-
-olive Davis v. City of Newport Beach
Orange County Superior Court No. 32 95 85
Enclosed are copies of the approved agreements on the .above
listed subjects, which have been fully executed by the Mayor.
DORIS GEORGE
City Clerk .
DG:bf
encl.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
W-4
0
N II BB O -I AT21
MES B. TUCKER, SR. IIBBB'195D1
LFO RGER DAML
CLIFFORD E. FRi£DEN
N. HOWELL
RES9
ARTHUR G. NIOMPN
T
JAMES B. TUCKER
AE
MICHAEL O. RU BIN
ARVIN nRLENBERG ER
MAR. WINTNROP
JAMES R. M
F. O
IRw G. p VIN
ROBERT L. RIC
ISLE
JEFFREY M. OBERMAN
HOMER L. MCC ORMS K, JR.
DR
ISER
LLIAM M KE.GF
HOWARD F. HARRIS ON
RUOOLPH C. SH EPARO
AM ES E. ERICKSON
E. 5. WOLCOTT, ID
IL "M 7'
ROBERT 5. BOWER
RICHARD . CURNUTT
FORSYTH
LEONARD w HAMPEL
WILLIAM TICORtNA
JOHN B .I R . HURLBUT. .
THOMAS A PISTONE
MICHAEL W MEL1.
LAWRENCE J. DREYFU65
LFORD W
ANNE N L ANPHAR
THEODORE LLACE 1.
ERIC G,EIPOFF
RICNARD P, 51 ME
E. H YEAGER
ROBERT C. BRAUN
RENA C. STONE
ROOER A. GRABLE
J. CAPLAN
EDWARD O. SYBESMA.J
GARY M. LAPE
THOMAS 5, SA LINGER
DIANE L DOUGLAS
BARRY R. LAUBSCHER
P O. K
DAVID C. ARSEN
L
JOEL O, UPERBERG
K
DANIEL K. WINTON
ELIZABETH A. NEALE
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING
401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
POST OFFICE BOX 1976
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
TELECOPIER (714) 558 -1566
(7)41 835 -2200
March 7, 1980
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
a
Re: The Koll Company v. City of Newport
Beach, et al (OCSC 32- 68 -76)
Gentlemen:
NEWPORT BEACH OFTICE
.10 NEWPORT CENTER .RIVE, SUITE WE
POST OFFICE BOX 1369
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
TELECOPIER (]141 159 -8993
VIA) 159-0633
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
MAP 111980
•
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIF. -
We are writing this letter as a written memorandum
of agreement under which we are associating in the above -
entitled matter to represent the City of Newport Beach
in said litigation.
We are prepared to represent the City of Newport
Beach in this matter for a composite rate of $90.00 per
hour with monthly billings.
Costs, such as filing fees, process service fees,
reproduction costs, title company fees, reporter's fees,
long distance telephone calls and travel would be billed
separately.
If the foregoing is agreeable and acceptable to
you, please present it to the City Council for approval
and return an executed copy of this agreement to the
undersigned.
If you desire any changes, please contact us at
your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKE
eonard A. ampel
LAH :loh
wz-
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The foregoing is agreed to:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BY: Ct,u J /Aj—V
DATE: �Z
ATTEST:
DORIS GEORGE
City Clerk