By DOUG SHERWIN

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch senior counsel Evelyn F. Heidelberg successfully convinced San Diego City Council to extend the lives of tentative subdivision maps for 29 condominium conversion projects that had been caught up in litigation.

City council approved the extension applications by a vote of 6-2 on Sept. 9 despite objections from the development services staff.

The 29 projects, which range in size from eight to 48 units, are located in a variety of neighborhoods around San Diego. The lives of these maps have been extended from three to 25 months, depending on how long each project was subject to judicial challenge.

The 29 projects were among hundreds of projects challenged in four lawsuits filed against the city by two environmental groups claiming the city's approval of condo conversion projects violated the California Environmental Quality Act.

The 29 projects had settled out of the litigation and sought relief from the city under a provision of the Subdivision Map Act, allowing local governments to stay the lives of tentative maps subject to judicial challenge.

"Council's action granting the litigation 'stays' avoids imposing unnecessary additional costs on my clients, who have already endured the costs of defending and settling the lawsuits," Heidelberg said. "The additional costs which would have been imposed by the city staff's recommended approach would have been passed on to the purchasers of these condo units.

"We are pleased that council recognized this and took action consistent with its affordable housing objectives, as condo conversions represent a principal source of entry level for-sale housing for many San Diego families."

The State Legislature authorized such relief in 1979, when it acknowledged that those holding tentative subdivision maps caught up in litigation will not invest in the steps necessary to obtain their final subdivision maps while litigation is pending, because if such litigation is successful, the maps will be void.

The development services staff opposed the applications, on grounds that the applicants had not applied for extensions under general provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and the courts had not issued an order preventing the applicants from obtaining their final maps while the litigation was pending.

Heidelberg argued that staff's recommendation would require each applicant to file a separate application, which would cost each applicant thousands of dollars and months of further delay.