Moving yard to ACT V is...

Moving yard to ACT V is a good idea

A recent article asked if the city of Laguna Beach should move the

corporation yard to ACT V. The answer is Yes.

TIM WHETSELL

Laguna Beach

Yes, moving the city corporation yard to ACT V makes the most

sense.

Yes, reduce the meter rate hike back -- all I hear are complaints.

GRACE BRIGGS

Laguna Beach

Time to make final decision on entrance

What are we going to do with the corporate yard/Village Entrance?

The city had reached a decision on the architectural proposal for the

project by StudioOneEleven. The successful proposal, which cost the

city a few bucks, called for incorporating the corporate yard into

the Village Entrance design.

After all of that, plus the 10 or more years this issue has been

before the city, we now have a conflicted City Council who think

maybe the corporate yard should be moved to ACT V.

Please, can’t we just make a decision, stick with it, and follow

through with it?

ED PETERSEN

Laguna Beach

Beautiful Laguna Canyon? Not for long

All Lagunans agree, the beautiful Laguna Canyon deserves to be

kept looking beautiful. The next time you drive by ACT V look at the

giant mess. There are piles of dirt, trucks and machines strewn all

over. Is this what we want the beautiful canyon to look like? No way!

When the corporate yard moves here, it is going to look even worse.

Voice your opinion to the City Council.

HERB RABE

Laguna Beach

What has changed to indicate that a total rethinking of the

Village Entrance/corporate yard decision is necessary?

It has been suggested that with a “new council” there is a mandate

to re-evaluate the decisions of the old one. We dispute this

justification on several grounds:

1. There is no “new council” or even a new majority

* The council has only one new member, Elizabeth Pearson.

* Elizabeth Pearson was endorsed by Paul Freeman, the retiring

council member, and the public has no reason to expect a wholesale

reconsideration of his or the council’s decisions.

2. There is no mandate for reversals on this issue. The voters did

not send a message that they want these decisions altered.

* Steve Dicterow’s campaign theme, “Laguna Beach has never been

in better shape,” certainly did not indicate that he was going to

change course on decisions the City Council had been working on for

the eight years he had been on the council.

* Elizabeth Pearson’s literature said that she “recommended a

parking garage at the Village Entrance.” Since the present plans for

the Village Entrance include a parking garage, there was no

indication that changes to the Village Entrance / corporate yard

plans would be proposed.

* Toni Iseman, who received the most votes, does not support

reversing the previous Village Entrance/corporate yard decision. Her

literature supported the Village Entrance plan, and the free shuttle

that she spearheaded relies on the ACT V lot being used for visitor

parking.

3. Laguna Beach citizens want to move ahead, not rehash old

decisions. We believe that one of the reasons that Steve Dicterow’s

campaign theme, “Laguna Beach has never been in better shape,”

resonated with voters is that in the past year there has been closure

on two major issues that have caused unrest and conflict -- Treasure

Island and the Village Entrance. The council should not rekindle

conflict; rather, it should build on the consensus that the present

Village Entrance plan represents.

Citizens have spent many hours serving on task forces and

committees -- not only the Village Entrance task force of 1995, but

the corporate yard task force and many meetings with the Planning

Commission and council to develop the criteria for a Village Entrance

plan and for the Village Entrance design competition. The Village

Entrance project took center stage in many of the Vision 2020 process

discussions. In the course of this long and broad-based community

decision-making process, a balance of parking, corporate yard

functions, park, historic preservation and canyon enhancement has

been worked out. We believe that this process has produced a sound

plan that we should implement.

* The plan includes a parking garage for 294 vehicles and still

provides space for the corporate yard.

* It is appropriate for the site, complements the canyon,

improves the aesthetics of the area, and is practical to implement.

* It keeps the corporate yard functions centrally located, not

out in the canyon (at the ACT V lot) where they could become

inaccessible because of flood or fire.

* It makes the ACT V lot fully available for peripheral parking

that will keep a substantial amount of traffic congestion out of the

Downtown area and encourage use of the shuttle.

It allows the cost of reconstructing the corporate yard to

contribute to the Village Entrance project rather than being spent at

a separate and difficult site. (It will be recalled that one of the

reasons the council rejected the idea of putting the corporate yard

at ACT V was its excessive costs.)

We believe that the council should recognize the soundness of the

previous decision, respect the public process that has brought the

plan to this point and proceed with finding ways to implement the

plan.

GINGER OSBORNE

President, Laguna Village

Thank you to a kind driver

My attitude toward the New Year was transformed when I received

help from a perfect stranger who called on her cell phone and used

her Auto Club membership when she noticed that I had a flat tire

outside Ralph’s Market. Fifteen minutes later, I was on my way to

Xerox my last letter in this paper and mail it all over the country.

I have become a considerate driver, letting cars into the space in

front of me or allowing them to cross to the other side in such

places as approaching Forest Avenue on Glenneyre, where traffic is

often snarled.

Thank you, Mrs. Gardner!

ANDY WING

Laguna Beach

The problems with Driftwood Estates

I am a 45-year resident of Laguna Beach. For 42 of those years, I

have lived on Driftwood Drive, just one short, narrow block from the

proposed Driftwood Estates 15-lot subdivision in South Laguna, in the

hills just above the Treasure Island development.

Having attended Planning Commission hearings on this proposed

subdivision since March 2002, I have a few comments for the City

Council as they prepare to hear this project on Jan. 14:

* The Sierra Club and our neighborhood association have opposed

development of this property based on its destruction of biological

resources (including the deletion of a significant watercourse),

safety, parking and traffic issues, water quality issues and myriad

significant findings that would alter or destroy our quality of life.

With development of the land a “given” based upon the Planning

Commission’s mind set, we submitted a list of “planning criteria” for

this proposed subdivision on Nov. 9, prior to the final Nov. 20

hearing. This list of criteria was signed and endorsed by more than

85 residents in Laguna Beach, pleading with the commission to “plan

correctly” if, in fact, they must approve this horrendous project.

The criteria were never discussed or acknowledged by the Planning

Commission.

We submitted the same criteria to the City Council on Dec. 13.

Please consider our requests. It is city government’s responsibility

to plan correctly, and this subdivision doesn’t include even the

basics of good planning.

* This proposed subdivision site is made up of a mixture of stable

and very unstable soils. The environmental impact report mentions

that blasting might be necessary if normal grading processes are

insufficient to “destroy” this land and make it build-able. At

several Planning Commission hearings and in our replies to the

report, we asked that blasting be strictly prohibited. The Planning

Commission has never addressed this issue, and we continue to be

concerned about the imminent danger and destruction this could cause

to our homes and streets -- not to mention our peace of mind.

* Living on Driftwood, my neighbors and I will suffer the

hardship of being denied parking on our street during most of the

construction process due to the size of our street. Is this fair?

Where will we park? Where will the construction workers park? Where

will children be safe boarding school buses? How will the waste

management and other large delivery trucks maneuver around all the

construction vehicles on our street?

There is no reason for all this construction traffic to go down

our narrow little street. The developer has cooperated with the

neighbors on either side of the much-disputed easement to the

property and that easement is now a part of the subdivision. Let the

developer use his own land/easement for construction traffic!

* There is a “master grading plan” outlined for the project. What

the developer has not made clear is why all the grading will not be

done under the master grading plan. Why should this neighborhood be

subjected to subsequent grading for years to come by each individual

homeowner? Even Laguna Niguel forced the Bunion project to identify

the building envelopes for their houses. The Driftwood Estates

project proposes ongoing grading of pads and refuses to identify the

actual building envelopes for 15 lots. Why? Not only is this unfair

to the residents that will have to live through years of ongoing

grading, it will tie up Design Review to no end. And, we’ll all have

to attend those 15 Design Review Board meetings or be altogether shut

out of participation in the process.

* Just two words: Diamond/Crestview. Why is the Planning

Commission allowing yet another Diamond/Crestview project to unfold

right under their noses? Hasn’t city government learned anything from

their past mistakes on Driftwood? City Council has an opportunity to

“plan correctly.” They must do so.

* Dedication of open space is a major issue in Laguna Beach, and

I completely support increasing our greenbelt. Our neighborhood has

been told time and again that we should sit down, be quiet and let

this development begin so that we and the city can bask in the

delight of 218 acres of newly acquired open space. At what cost to

the existing neighborhood? The remaining 218 acres are not build-able

-- why should we view this as such an incredible, generous donation?

Think of the 300-plus residents whose quality of life will suffer

under the development of such an impact subdivision. Again, it’s the

city government’s responsibility to plan correctly; this subdivision,

as currently conceived, is far from anything that has been planned

correctly.

These are only a few of the issues that keep us all awake at

night. At 9 a.m. on Jan. 11, when you conduct your site tour of the

property (open to the public -- meet at end of Driftwood Drive)

please keep my comments in mind. Don’t ever take us for granted. We

have lived here for decades and deserve consideration.

JEANIE BERNSTEIN

Laguna Beach

The Driftwood Estates project is a 15-lot subdivision on 10 acres

located at the end of Driftwood Drive in South Laguna along with 218

acres of open space trade-off to the city (at least 200 of these

acres are not build able). Each lot will be sold individually, and

custom homes will be developed by each lot owner, creating years of

Design Review Board meetings to complete the review of 15 proposed

houses.

The development team is Highpoint Communities Land Development and

Skinnerian and Associates. Many of you know this property as the

“Slinger property” beginning at the end of Driftwood Drive in South

Laguna in the hills above the new Montage Resort. These 10 acres have

been maintained for over 40 years without any grading permits from

the county or the city of Laguna Beach.

Laguna Beach Planning Commission hearings were held on Driftwood

Estates from March 13 to Nov. 20, 2002. From May 8 to Sept. 25, 2002,

the city’s Community Development Department pushed for a more

conservative subdivision of seven lots as opposed to 15 lots. The

planning staff expressed that the 15-lot subdivision was in conflict

with the city’s general plan, a significant watercourse and the very

high value habitat on the site. But just before the final Planning

Commission hearing of Nov. 20, the applicant decided to dedicate the

218 acres of open space to the city, and the city’s planning staff

caved in and agreed to 15 lots. The Planning Commission then approved

the project and recommended it to the City Council for approval at

its Jan. 14, 2003 meeting.

The gripe: There are numerous geological, hydrological and

ecological problems and issues within the proposed Driftwood Estates

project.

As far as the surrounding Hobo Alison Ridge neighborhood is

concerned, there is another BIG problem: The Planning Commission, the

Community Development Department and the applicant never made any

attempt at compromise with the existing neighborhood on the design of

the subdivision.

This neighborhood spent 18 months preparing evidence, criteria and

testimony for a more compatible development as the Planning

Commission encouraged it to do. But, the neighborhood was shut down

by this city without any compromise whatsoever.

The consequences: New development requires more tax dollars being

spent on:

* Cleaning and maintenance of added streets.

* Cleaning and maintenance of all added storm drain systems and

catch basins.

* Amenities and maintenance of a trail head.

* Troubleshooting and repairing the old sewer and storm drain

systems that this subdivision will tie into.

* Added fire and police protection.

* Assuming the proposed Driftwood Estates Neighborhood Assn.’s

responsibilities if it fails.

And what about:

* Driftwood Estates lot and house construction traffic

interfering with the new Montage Resort’s performance at the

intersection of Coast Highway and Wesley Drive for five years?

* Construction traffic for lots and houses for five years within

the Hobo Aliso Ridge neighborhood?

* Increased traffic and parking problems?

* The safety of children dodging construction vehicles trying to

get to the four school bus stops in a neighborhood without sidewalks?

* Water, air and noise pollution?

* The destruction of acres of very high value habitat, such as

southern maritime chaparral, including the federally endangered

big-leaved crown beard and coastal sage scrub?

The important questions: What precedent will the Laguna Beach City

Council establish for the remaining developable acreage in the city

by approving this poorly-planned subdivision?

Will the city allow more and more large-scale citywide development

in the years ahead that will create additional traffic and parking

congestion?

What is the Laguna Beach City Council prepared to do to protect

and preserve its citizens’ and taxpayers’ environment, quality of

life and their opportunity for compromise?

RICHARD AND PAM WILKINS

Laguna Beach

Tree sitting is very prominent in the media these days. It appears

as though it’s the only way for environmentalists and

conservationists to get their point across: Development is destroying

our planet.

As a Sierra Club conservation coordinator who has been attending

Planning Commission hearings since March 2002 on Driftwood Estates,

the proposed 15-lot subdivision in South Laguna, I realize that

perhaps “endangered species sitting” may become a necessity if the

City Council elects to support the Planning Commission’s decision to

approve this project on Jan. 14.

The developer has so generously dedicated a “trail head” as part

of the proposed 15-lot massacre of this very high value habitat

acreage, where they have already approved the deletion of a

significant watercourse. The trail head is positioned in the midst of

one of the highest concentrations of large-leaved crownbeard on the

entire proposed project site. Please note: Large-leaved crownbeard is

listed as a federally endangered species.

And when the trail head was discussed at the final Planning

Commission hearing, Sierra Club member and planning commissioner Anne

Johnson’s major concern was, “can we have a bench and maybe a trash

can at this location?” Disappointing to say the least that a fellow

Sierra Club member and planning commissioner isn’t interested or

knowledgeable enough to protect an endangered species that is only

found in South Laguna.

On Jan. 11, when the City Council and planning staff conduct a

site tour of this proposed project site (which is open to the

public), I urge them to take a careful look at this proposed

recreational site that will ultimately destroy an endangered species.

Not only is this a violation of the endangered species act, it isn’t

the right thing to do for our planet.

The media asked Orange County residents in last week’s news

articles if there were 500 tree sitters willing to protect the

ancient oaks and sycamores out at the proposed Saddle Creek and

Saddle Crest developments. I ask Laguna Beach -- do we have several

hundred “endangered species sitters” that are willing to protect some

of the last vestiges of an endangered species in South Laguna?

CHRISTOPHER KOONTZ

Sierra Club Conservation

Coordinator -- Angeles Chapter

Los Angeles

Sadly it must be reported the city of Laguna and its Planning

Commission, in a sadly misguided effort to maintain a quality of life

for those that live and enjoy the many bounties the city offers, has

missed the very concept of what Laguna is all about.

It appears that the Planning Commission’s sole purpose is to be

the lap dog to developers who shoe-horn in a 15-house estate plan

that defies the very nature of the city’s General Plan.

Water course? What water course? Ignore it. Defy hydrology. Poof,

the water course is gone. (Sorry, Mother Nature, you don’t exist.)

Never mind the rivers of water that can pour from the hills in a

heartbeat, pouring untold gallons upon gallons into a mystery drain

system, further impacting the quality of life for those further down

the food chain than developers (the rest of the planet, it seems).

The neighborhood already has one example of ignoring the scale and

scope of the existing neighborhood with the building of the Stucco

Castle on the corner of Ocean Vista and Marilyn. To imagine this type

of building and the process that gave it birth magnified 15 times,

with endless Design Review Board meetings on each and every house is

overwhelming to one and all that enjoy the neighborhood.

Laguna is not yet unyielding wall-to-wall stucco houses like those

clinging to the hills above the Santa Ana Freeway to the south, all

fighting to outdo each other in sheer size, dwarfing the hills, not

existing within the grace of the terrain, yet those various “homes”

portend what is to come in the very near future if this unrelenting

trend continues within the city due to its blind eye in regards to

the future.

The voices of the neighborhood have been ignored. All the various

issues raised at meetings have been brushed aside in an unrelenting

pursuit to allow this development to proceed at all cost. This is a

trend that must not continue. For the sake of our neighborhood and

the future of the city of Laguna, this development must be derailed

and the city’s general plan enforced. Why? Because your house, your

view, your lifestyle could be next.

PAUL FLORANCE

South Laguna Beach

District should give my view back

I have lived in Laguna Beach for about 40 years and during this

period have supported the Laguna Beach school system in the following

ways:

1. By taxes paid on my home over these many years.

2. Donations to SchoolPower to help the district.

3. Contributions to Senior Grad Nite parties to help our grads to

survive the hazards of graduation parties.

4. Bond issue vote and additional taxes since, and for the future.

I have a problem that I am unable to get help from the district

officers to resolve in a realistic manner.

Some years ago, during the last big spending upgrade at, and of,

the high school facilities, some thoughtless person or persons gave

approval to plant five trees at the southwest corner of the

gymnasium. These serve no useful purpose other than to steal my view.

There was no thought or concern as to the fact that in time this

would rob me or others of a view of Main Beach. This view was a very

significant part of my decision to purchase my home on Wendt Terrace

when I bought it many years ago.

Over a year ago, I phoned the school district in an attempt to

have these trees trimmed to restore my view of Main Beach. When I

made this request that the trees be trimmed by 5 feet (now it is by 6

feet) I was told, “You will have to pay for it.” I attempted to

explain that I already had, over the years, see above. When I asked

if I could have it done on my own the answer was “Yes, if they are

licensed and provide $1 million in liability insurance.” A most

unrealistic demand for such a small job and the cost for one job.

Subsequently, I made many phone calls to Supt. Theresa Daem to get

her assistance in this matter. I say numerous, for rarely was she

available. When I did contact her, she usually said she would call me

back, and occasionally she did. I finally was able to discuss the

matter, and she agreed to look into it and call me back. I made many

more calls to her and I finally got a reply to my request, which was,

“Oh, I couldn’t justify an expenditure to trim those trees.” I

proposed to do it myself as I have a great deal of experience in both

trimming and felling trees. Again, “I will call you back.” But she

never did.

Shortly after Daem couldn’t “justify an expenditure” to trim the

trees that have taken my beach view and lowered the value of my

property, the school district found the money and justified embarking

on the following major programs:

1. Have all of the trees at the district offices and parking lot

trimmed and laced. A huge expenditure compared to my request.

2. Have the 18 palms on Park Avenue (in front of the high school)

trimmed.

3. Have all the palms on Short Street trimmed.

4. Have more trees along Wilson trimmed.

5. On Dec. 31 much more trimming above Short Street. More trimming

and lacing of trees. But nothing on those that plague me with view

loss.

Funds are not available to restore a valuable cherished view but:

The football field has eight banks of lights. The estimate by an

expert in lighting the cost of operation of these lights is about

$100 to $140 per hour. These lights are used for both school and

non-school activities. Many times these lights are on from 3 p.m. and

run until 1 a.m. These lights are on from two to four hours after an

event has ended. One person gave the lame excuse that it was for

clean up. Why can’t that be done the next day in daylight? At the

cost of a power, a lot of money can be saved. Also, why not both

practice and play games early on Saturdays instead of at night?

Then money to restore your neighbors’ views would be readily

available. And a lot of other things also.

We have a newly seated board that we have voted for that we felt

are responsible people and also good honorable neighbors. I request

that the board members have these offending trees either removed or

have them topped by 6 feet. In the past they were always topped and

trimmed without a request from me. The school district must become a

responsible neighbor, just like my neighbor across the street and

many other considerate and responsible residents of Laguna. These are

people that respect, have consideration for the rights of others.

They realize that it is their duty to trim and control tree growth

and not steal the views and lower property values of others.

The board’s responsibilities demand that they right this wrong

that I have been unable to obtain redress from the district’s

management personnel.

I would be amenable to showing each and every board member, at my

home, my view loss problem as well as photos of what the view was

prior to the growth of these trees.

LEE REYMER II

Laguna Beach

City Council meeting decorum is disturbing

We have lived in Laguna Beach for more than 20 years. We support

most of the businesses in Laguna including our favorite restaurants.

We even go to our wonderful drafty charming movie theater. We are

also fire survivors. I say survivors because with the help of kind

and compassionate neighbors and merchants, we still feel very

blessed.

I am not sure that I would find the same compassion and

willingness to help today.

I recently had to appear before our City Council on an appeal of

an administrative decision to restore our landscaping that had been

inadvertently removed.

Granted, it was 1:30 in the morning, but I felt like I was before

a kangaroo court.

The previous mayor attacked the city staff in a very abusive

manner, and was not very knowledgeable on even the very simple

building codes. When questioning the city staff regarding permits, he

exhibited disbelief and continued his argumentative behavior. I felt

as though I were caught in a political maelstrom. Our restoration,

clearly covered by the municipal code as permissible, and well

documented through photographs and site plans, was shut down without

direction or guidelines of how to proceed from here.

Although I was one of the few citizens that voted, I did not feel

that this was my City Council. Not one member responded to my letter,

e-mail or phone calls. One member did kindly walk our property in the

mud, but did not notify me. Rather they seemed very impressed that my

neighbor could afford to have an attorney to sit there for eight

hours to present their side of the case. Maybe this is the problem.

How can anyone give you eye contact or even seem awake and make a

decision at 3 a.m.? It seems rather counterproductive. Maybe

consideration should be made to stop City Council meetings at 11 p.m.

and let the citizens watch Leno.

So let me use this venue to state that we will hold the city

liable for their decision to stop a Design Board-approved, city

sanctioned and permitted drainage plan in the middle of an El Nino

season if and when damages occur.

SANDRA LONGNECKER

Laguna Beach

The Coastline Pilot is eager to run your letters. If your letter

does not appear it may be due to space restrictions and will likely

appear next week. If you would like to submit a letter, write to us

at P.O. Box 248 Laguna Beach CA 92652, fax us at 494-8979, or send

e-mail to [email protected]. Please give your name and

include your hometown and phone number, for verification purposes

only.