Cathy Jurca’s comments in last week’s Independent concerning the litigation by her various groups against the City and the Kirbys are typical of what we have come to expect. Since this matter is in litigation (in which, yes, the Kirbys are named as the “real party in interest”) I will respond to Jurca’s comments as follows:
Lawyers are duty bound to communicate settlement offers to clients. The actual communications sent by Jurca’s counsel were directed to my clients as required. The settlement demand did not sit well with the Kirbys. They were not legally bound to any degree of confidentiality whatsoever.
Jurca is correct that a paid historic consultant assessed the original project proposed by the Kirbys, and provided opinions concerning the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The project was designed by architect Todd Skenderian, a veteran of many historic restorations in Laguna and a former member of the Heritage Committee. Mr. Skenderian worked with the City planning staff and the City’s designated historic staff liaison to address the issues raised by the consultant.
The entire opinion of the consultant, the revisions made by Mr. Skenderian with input from the Staff and the Staff historical liaison, all went through the City’s prescribed vetting process. The Heritage committee reviewed the opinion, the modifications by Mr. Skenderian and made suggestions. All were considered and some were adopted by Mr. Skenderian. Working again with city staff and the staff historical liaison, with the same credentials as Jurca’s consultant, the project completed the zoning plan check process and went to the Design Review Board (DRB).
DRB also considered all materials, including a new report from Jurca’s own consultant, the design and revisions proposed to the project, and the staff recommendation to approve the project. They overwhelmingly agreed that the revised project met all Secretary of Interior Standards criteria and voted in favor of the project.
The DRB approval was appealed. The City Council considered the appeal, read the report of the original consultant and Jurca’s consultant, considered the facts and opinions, heard testimony from the staff, Mr. Skenderian, and the neighbors, who also supported the project, and approved the project unanimously. Jurca’s groups then sued the City and the Kirbys.
The issue here is whether Ms. Jurca, just because she does not like the outcome, has the power to overturn a decision which was made after multiple hearings and the presentation and weighing of substantial evidence from all sides, including her own.
Laurence Nokes, Laguna Beach
Editor’s Note: This letter appeared in the April 2 edition of the Independent.
