Mailbag - Aug. 26, 1999

HOAG AUXILIARY WELCOMES ALL VOLUNTEERS

I was disappointed to learn how a conversation about Hoag Hospital’s

auxiliary was interpreted (Letter to the Editor, “Sorry, you can’t

volunteer, you’re a college student,” Aug. 19).

We did not intend to give the impression that volunteers are screened by

age. In reality, we are interested in prospective volunteers of any age,

students or otherwise.

Membership is dependent upon position availability and meeting the time

commitments and job requirements of that position. Members are also asked

to adhere to a consistent work schedule so we can staff all shifts in a

reliable manner.

While they do not provide direct patient care, auxiliary members do

provide invaluable support, including staffing visitor help desks,

assisting families in waiting rooms, performing clerical duties, managing

the magazine and coffee carts, and working in the gift store.

We encourage anyone interested in volunteering to call (949) 760-2264,

and we would be happy to send an application.

PAUL SORENSEN

President, Hoag Hospital Auxiliary

NOW HE’S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE

Concerning construction at Harbor Day School, isn’t it ironic that Martin

Brower, whose mantra for years was “build, build, build,” is now upset

because one of his neighbors is building (“A wall doesn’t always make a

good, well, you know ... “ Aug. 18)?

BILL BENNETT

Newport Beach

IRVINE CO. SHOULD LISTEN TO NEWPORT RESIDENTS

As Newport Beach residents, we fully agree with the recent [full-page

advertisement in the] Daily Pilot on Aug. 14 (the open letter to the

Irvine Co. and Vons). It’s time for the Irvine Co. to respond to the

community’s needs and fulfill its original promise of a full-scale

commercial center and private parks. These were two very important

proposed amenities used by the Irvine Co. to sell millions of dollars in

property in the Newport Coast during the past five to seven years.

Blaming the Vons Co. for delays in the commercial center while quietly

negotiating to buy back part of the property for housing is unacceptable

to the residents. More dense housing will be a disaster -- existing

centers are already overcrowded. Community facilities are badly needed.

Future buyers need to beware of the Irvine Co.’s promises in the Newport

Coast.

GARY AND LINDA BENNETT

Newport Beach

Wait a minute -- when did the numbers change at Crystal Cove?

For months we have heard the Irvine Co. wants to build 800 homes -- and

commercial property -- at Crystal Cove. Now we hear 1,100 homes.

Wow -- I wonder if the old lady who built the Winchester House is running

the Irvine Co.? Is building really immortality? Or is it another billion?

The Irvine Co. has been a positive force in our county for generations --

if it wasn’t for them, our whole coast would probably look like Santa

Monica. But in recent years, our experience with the present group has

been less than satisfactory.

The older community of homes we are blessed to live in has two major

concerns that the Irvine Co. ignores: 1) Runoff from the upper golf

course at Pelican Hill eroded our beach access, and our community has

worked almost three years to have funds to fix it ourselves; 2) Those of

us who had views to the south over the highway have lost them because of

the trees along the golf course.

We were assured by upper management that we would have some view

corridors, but now we deal with golf course people. They have played cat

and mouse with us for about three years, and now the trees are above the

horizon for us all.

This is why I wonder about the welfare of Crystal Cove for all of us who

love it. After the Irvine Co. pushes through 1,100 homes above it, will

acts of God be responsible for its ruin? Will we wind up with another

mess like Huntington Beach has right now? Well don’t come to my house to

admire the view, it’s gone, too.

LINDA PRIMROSE

Corona del Mar

‘DR. LAURA’ DESERVES PRAISE, NOT POTSHOTS

Tom Adams’ letter to the Pilot, “Confused by Dr. Laura’s Beach Access

beef” (Aug. 14) makes statements that must be clarified. He questions why

at 22 he can’t go to a surf shop and buy a skateboarding magazine but can

go to a pornographic shop and buy pictures of her -- meaning Laura

Schlessinger -- nude.

Some who read that letter might not know the facts. Dr. Laura went into a

surf shop in South Coast Plaza to buy clothes for her son. While he was

trying them on, she browsed through magazines left on a table for patrons

to see. The cover of one indicated it was a skateboard magazine for

teens, but included inside was [objectionable] material. She talked to

the store manager, showed him the magazine, and asked him to remove it.

He refused to do so. Therefore, she alerted mothers to the situation on

her radio program, which falls within her stated obligation of protecting

children.

The store owner later claimed Dr. Laura did not talk with anyone in the

store, and if she did, they would have gladly removed the objectionable

material. Who do I believe? Well since I also have had similar

experiences described by Dr. Laura, I have no doubt that her version of

the story is correct.

Adams’ letter also had a mean-spirited reference to seeing nude pictures

of Dr. Laura on the Internet. Decades ago, she had a relationship with a

man who had taken those private pictures of her. Recently, apparently

jealous of her notoriety and possibly for a good deal of money, he

allowed those pictures to be shown to the public. He is the one who

deserves our disgust, certainly not Dr. Laura, who has gone on to lead a

moral, happy and extremely successful life. Her noon-to 3 p.m. radio

program on KFI has topped the charts because through her experiences,

intelligence, and wit she helps others get through their difficult times.

She has become a beacon of light to millions of listeners throughout

America and deserves our praise.

SARA SANSEVIERI

Corona del Mar

REMODEL PROJECTS COULD DESTROY NEIGHBORHOOD CHARM

Recently you carried the story of the problem concerning Tracy

Stevenson’s remodeling on Samoa Place, which revolved around the

prohibition of the construction of a third story in a residential zone.

The Costa Mesa City Council addressed the complaints of neighbors because

of its size and voted 4-1, thus rejecting a rehearing in the matter of

prohibiting the third level of construction.

I wonder if there is not a similar type of problem surfacingin Newport

Beach at the corner of Tradewinds and Holiday, where there is currently

under construction on an R-1 lot a humongous home in dimensions both

outward and upward to create a mansion totally out of character with the

surrounding area?

No doubt building permits are in place, but I venture to suggest that a

poll in the neighborhood would find some interesting comments on

architectural controls in the city of Newport Beach. Whatever happened to

design review and how is it possible that one small corner lot can

contain such density and be so domineering to the neighbors? There must

be virtually minimum setbacks, so where is the privacy the neighbors

enjoyed when the former single-story house was on that lot?

Is the largess of the prosperous investors at work? Is this how we

exhibit our newfound wealth and place it before the community to

establish bragging rights? I sincerely hope not.

I hope that in the future, the city will be more careful in issuing

building permits for the older parts of the city, otherwise we will

slowly destroy the character of our environment all the way from Dover

Shores to Irvine Avenue.

DAVID A.W. YOUNG

Newport Beach

IS THERE A WAY TO LEVEL SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN?

Our cable television bills keep going up, but the service keeps going

down.

For example, MediaOne, which serves the Costa Mesa area, used to have a

channel that showed hourly the entire TV schedule. No longer. Now we must

search the various TV listings in the newspapers, not an easy job for

shut-ins, for example.

I have not been able to discover why MediaOne no longer provides a

program listing on one of its channels. The only fact that I discovered

for sure is that so far, no cable company plans to level Saddleback

Mountain to provide better television reception for South Orange County.

DON K. PIERSTORFF

Costa Mesa

CHIROPRACTOR ALWAYS DEMONSTRATED PROFESSIONALISM

I would like to remind the Daily Pilot, and especially the Newport Beach

Police Department spokesman who was extensively quoted in the article

regarding Steven Lovell, that in our country people are to be considered

innocent unless proven guilty (“Police arrest Newport Beach chiropractor

for sexual battery,” Aug. 19).

We may never know what motivated the unnamed women to make allegations

against Dr. Lovell. I, for one, will never believe that Steve Lovell

acted in an inappropriate fashion. I have been a patient of his for a

couple of years, as have my husband and many of my friends -- women and

men. No one I’ve talked to has had anything but a completely professional

experience with Dr. Lovell.

He is a dedicated, talented chiropractor who has helped many people with

their pain. He is also a very good and kind person with a terrific

family. It makes me angry and sad that unproven charges have been made

worse by careless police comments and unnecessary publicity.

JEAN M. DONNELLY

Newport Coast

A THANK YOU AND A CLARIFICATION

It is pleasure to see that the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce

and its member businesses agree with the position of the initiative

proponents as reported in your article of Aug. 19 (“Businesses won’t

traffic in initiative”).

Their survey shows that our initiative will do more good for local

businesses than the current traffic law. We welcome them to our cause.

The chamber’s survey results show that businesses believe traffic

conditions are better in Newport Beach than in other Orange County

cities. We agree. The reason for our better traffic conditions is the now

“gutted” Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). It forced the city to protect

residents and local businesses by requiring mitigation of the traffic

congestion caused by high-rise office buildings and hotels, etc., as a

part of their projects. This enabled easy access of customers to local

businesses.

The new ordinance permits gridlock. The City Council can declare an

intersection “infeasible to improve.” The developer then can proceed to

erect high-rise, congestion-inducing office buildings without mitigating

traffic. Local business will suffer, as their customers will be reluctant

to experience gridlock on our local streets and will shop elsewhere.

Local residents will also suffer additional delays.

Kudos to the Chamber of Commerce aside, I must correct several

inaccuracies in the Pilot’s reporting:

1) I am quoted as stating, “There are 10 major projects lined up in the

city attorney’s office.” In my letter to the Pilot dated Aug. 13, I

pointed out that I was previously misquoted, it should read “in the

city’s planning cycle.”

2) The proponents of the initiative are mischaracterized as a “band of

environmentalists.” A simple reading of the initiative itself would show

that the proponents are former Mayor Evelyn Hart; Central Newport Beach

Community Association President Tom Hyans; and the undersigned, who is

chairman of the Community Assn. Alliance, the largest residents

organization in the city. We proponents are proud that the so-called

“environmentalists” are members of our team.

3) The subject of the initiative is stated as seeking to “turn over the

new traffic phasing ordinance.” That is incorrect. Our initiative

addresses the detrimental fallout of the gutting of the Traffic Phasing

Ordinance and does not correct the law directly. The new ordinance

permits high-density buildings to be built without requiring that

resulting traffic be mitigated in advance in most cases.

Therefore we have a broader target, as we seek to keep Newport Beach from

becoming a congested, high-rise metropolitan area. We also seek to place

control of the city back in the residents’ hands until the council does

its proper planning job and updates our obsolete general plan.

The initiative requires voter approval of major projects, such as resort

hotels on the peninsula, the Dunes on the bay, multiple high-rise office

buildings in many locations in the city, and other similar projects that

will lower the quality of life and property values of residents.

4) The working of the new ordinance incorrectly stated that the city will

now pay for the improvements in advance. Come on now. The city doesn’t

have the money. That is the reason we have the ordinance in the first

place. But now, with it gutted, we citizens have no recourse other than

to place the initiative on the ballot of the voters to decide between

traffic-inducing, high-rise office buildings or an acceptable quality of

life.

The Pilot has never called me to check the facts or respond to the three

letters I have sent requesting corrections of previous inaccuracies. As I

believe that you want to avoid the appearance of bias, it would be good

journalism to accurately present the positions of both sides.

PHILIP L. ARST

Corona del Mar