Coastal Commission didn’t violate Laguna resident’s rights when it OK’d hotel renovation, judge rules
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has ruled that the California Coastal Commission did not violate a Laguna Beach resident’s due process rights when it approved a permit for a hotel renovation in the city in 2015.
In his March 17 decision, Judge Richard Fruin said the commission applied the “correct legal standards” and that Mark Fudge “has not proved a basis for relief.”
Attorney Peter Hsiao, who represents Fudge, said Monday that he has appealed Fruin’s ruling.
Fudge sued the city of Laguna Beach and the commission in March 2015, claiming, among other things, that plans for The Ranch at Laguna Beach, a hotel at 31106 S. Coast Hwy., should have received greater scrutiny about possible harm to surrounding habitat.
In January 2015, the commission approved a request from Laguna Beach Golf & Bungalow Village LLC to, among other proposals, increase the number of available rooms from 64 to 97, reconfigure a restaurant, and add a spa and fitness center. Thirty-two rooms of the hotel, once known as the Aliso Creek Inn, were split in half to double the rental spaces.
During a trial in November last year, Hsiao argued it was unfair that Laguna Beach Golf & Bungalow Village received an emailed copy of a 67-page addition to commission staff’s original report the night before the Jan. 8, 2015 hearing but his client did not.
The addendum, which the commission posted on its website, contained new information regarding anticipated room rates and the effect on the overall supply of affordable accommodations in Laguna.
By the time Fudge learned that the document was on the website, about 4:30 a.m. the day of the hearing, he needed to leave for the hearing, according to court records.
In his ruling, Fruin wrote that during the hearing, Fudge did not mention he didn’t have enough time to review the addendum.
But even if he had, Fruin said, Fudge “had the opportunity” to obtain the addendum.
“If Mr. Fudge decided not to take 10 minutes to download the document before leaving home, that was his decision,” Fruin said.
In response to the addendum, representatives of Laguna Beach Golf & Bungalow Village requested changes to conditions that commission staff had proposed, handing their typed notes to commissioners during the 2015 hearing.
The commission did not provide copies to Fudge or the public, according to court documents.
Fudge claimed such action was an example of an “impermissible ex parte communication.”
Fruin disagreed. He wrote that handing notes to commissioners during a hearing does not classify as an ex parte communication, which is oral or written correspondence between a commissioner and an interested party that does not occur during a public meeting.
“Nothing prohibits any person or interested party from submitting written comments for the record on a matter before the commission,” Fruin wrote.
In November, Hsiao claimed Fudge’s due process rights were violated when he wasn’t allowed to review or comment on the suggested changes to the project, since the public comment period had closed.
“The Coastal Commission apparently does not have a rule that requires written materials it receives during a hearing be made available to audience members present at the hearing,” Fruin wrote.
Other speakers provided PowerPoint presentations during the hearing, but paper copies were not available for the public, Fruin said.
In December, a three-judge panel of the state 2nd District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court ruling that dismissed a portion of Fudge’s lawsuit claiming the city did not adequately address possible environmental harm from the hotel renovation.
The Laguna Beach Planning Commission approved the project in May 2014. Fudge appealed that decision to the Coastal Commission.
As part of the Coastal Commission’s approval of the project, Mark Christy, principal partner of Laguna Beach Golf & Bungalow Village, agreed to pay $250,000 for a consultant to design a pedestrian and bicycle trail to link inland property to the coastline. Commission staff had been concerned that the project would hinder public access.
Twitter: @AldertonBryce
