Irregularities reign at revocation hearing

Normal procedures fell by the wayside Tuesday at a rare, perhaps unique, revocation hearing before the City Council of a Design Review Board approval and building permit.

The hearing, which included a closed session, ended with a continuance until November because the attorney for the owners of 29 Bay Drive in Three Arch Bay was not provided with the data on which the request for revocation was based by neighbors, as previously instructed by the council.

The neighbors, dubbed “requesters” at the lengthy hearing, claimed the approval was obtained by negligence or misrepresentation of pertinent data by the project architect, both grounds for revocation under the city’s municipal code.

City officials could recall no other instance of a revocation hearing.

“The city has not held a revocation hearing in the more than 20 years I have been here,” City Attorney Philip Kohn said.

Revocation hearings also had not been experienced by other attorneys with Kohn’s firm, Rutan and Tucker, which provides legal advice to many cities in Orange County, he said.

Each side was given 20 minutes to make an initial presentation and a 10-minute rebuttal period. Supporters were given three minutes each. Both sides were questioned by council.

The three-hour hearing ended in disarray as representatives of both sides took the microphone at will, sometimes jostling one another from the podium, as council debated the requirements, procedures and timing for the continued hearing.

Requesters and supporters commented without restraint on the proposals, objecting to proposed times and dates for the continuance, deemed necessary by council to allow a review by opposing council of data introduced at the meeting, because of planned trips or work commitments. Council members and staff, including Kohn, also had conflicts with several timelines proposed until the scheduled council meeting date of Nov. 5 was selected.

Requesters were instructed to deliver to Community Development Director John Montgomery by noon today, Friday, all data and exhibits related to the topographical map exhibited at the meeting. Some of the exhibits were taken from the council chamber before the hearing ended, which does not accord with city requirements.

Montgomery will make the information available to attorney Gene Gratz, who represents Charles and Valerie Griswold, owners of 29 Bay Drive, and by extension their architect Jim Conrad, who project opponents allege knowingly misrepresented data.

Gratz will supply his responses to the requesters by close of business on Nov. 15. The process was likened to “discovery,” in legal actions.

The continued hearing was scheduled for 3 p.m., Nov. 5, prior to the scheduled council meeting.

Attorney Randall S. Waier represented requesters Kathleen and Craig Miller and Sid and Lesley Dannenhauer at Tuesday’s hearing.

In a letter to the council, Waier said the Griswolds had failed to obtain a development permit from the California Coastal Commission before the city issued its original building permit.

“Under Laguna Beach Municipal Code 25.07.004, a CDP [coastal permit] is required for any such construction plans, and before a permit is issued,” Waier wrote.

Waier said the Griswolds and Conrad told the planning commission and the Design Review that a coastal development permit had been issued, which induced the city to issue a building permit in 2003.

Gratz described the missing coastal permit as an oversight by Conrad or a glitch in the system, which was not caught until 2004, when a permit was applied for and issued.

Requesters claim the construction plans approved by the commission differed from the construction plans approved by the city for which the city issued a building permit.

Differences, they said, included the boundaries used to establish the area of the lot and computation of the average slope, which resulted in a height guideline of 29 feet. Revocation, they said, was warranted

Tuesday’s hearing followed a previous three hour hearing on Sept. 5, at which it was determined that sufficient findings had been made to warrant a revocation hearing. The vote was 3-2.

Requesters were instructed at the meeting to specify their justifications for revocation and make the information available to the property owners. Failure to comply led to council’s decision to continue Tuesday’s hearing after the closed session with the city attorney.