Skate park is not city’s responsibility I...

Skate park is not city’s responsibility

I don’t believe it. Why is our City Council even considering a

city-sponsored skateboard park? First of all they would be spending

all of the taxpayers’ money to benefit maybe 4% of the population.

Then let me list some of the other problems a park would create.

First of all the cost of design and construction. Has the city

that much extra dollars? If so why did they raise my sewer taxes?

Then the cost of daily upkeep.

Then the cost of liability insurance. Can you even buy insurance

for such an obvious public hazard?

Any location along the canyon road would create a monumental

traffic hazard. Skateboarders being dropped off and picked up plus

parking for those that drive in.

The facility would need to be fenced and supervised 24 hours a day

as it will attract a wild bunch. If the city is so determined to have

a skateboard park let them give a very favorable land lease to a

private investor and let them install the park. If it is such a great

deal this should be no problem.

To the City Council, remember, you are supposed to represent all

the residents of Laguna Beach, not just the few who want a place to

ride their skateboards.

DAN HUSTON

Laguna Beach

What happened to Montage bed tax?

During a three-hour City Council budget workshop, all were very

dejected about how difficult the 2004-05 fiscal year will be. I was

very disappointed that not once did the council members discuss what

went wrong regarding the cost overruns for public amenities at the

Montage Resort. This year’s bed tax receipts should be more than $6

million dollars compared to the $ 3.7 million budget for both last

and this coming year.

The money will be paid, but cannot be counted as revenue even next

year as it will first go to repay city accounts that were tapped to

pay off the debt at the Montage. Mayor Cheryl Kinsman is a CPA who

ran for office claiming that her financial acumen would benefit the

city. However, the estimated $2.5 million public parking structure,

park, etc. at the Montage ended up costing the city $9.7 million, all

occurring on her watch.

In 1999, many of us voted to allow a resort at Treasure Island, as

it was the single largest possible source of additional discretionary

revenue to the city. It is a shame the money was squandered. It would

be nice to know how this was allowed to happen. I, for one, have

never heard an explanation.

GENE FELDER

Laguna Beach

Web should be used to disclose finances

Mayor Cheryl Kinsman voted at a November 2003 meeting for a

$15,000 voluntary City Council campaign expenditure limit reducing,

it from $30,000. I wonder, when she so voted, if she had any

intention to sign the pledge for this year’s election?

The numbers from the election in 2000 were quite disturbing: a

total of $64,821 or $14.06 per vote for Kinsman. This is an

outrageous amount of money. By comparison, Councilman Wayne Baglin

had a total of $25,060 or $6.70 per vote.

Additionally, Kinsman voted against using the Internet to promptly

disclose campaign finances. I am greatly disappointed that Kinsman

voted against pre-election online disclosure of fundraising and

expenditures of candidates. Since I want to know who I am really

voting for this is one way to find out who the major supporters of

these candidates are and therefore what the candidates really stand

for. Surely, the Laguna Beach voter should have this vital

information prior to casting his/her vote.

CHARLOTTE MASARIK

Laguna Beach

What’s the point of getting plan approval

First of all let me say that I do not know any of the protagonists

in this brouhaha. I’m not even sure I know where 550 Mountain Road

is. But I can’t imagine how 1,448 square feet would be massive. I

live in a condo larger than that and would hardly characterize it as

“massive.”

But I am appalled that property owners can submit remodel plans to

two city agencies (Heritage Committee and Design Review Board),

receive approvals from both and still find themselves embroiled in

the current situation. Why bother to waste the time of the owners,

the architects and agency members, if the council is going to

overturn them because a couple people complain after the fact.

There was ample time to give public and neighbor input during the

review process. In fact some people in town feel that there is

entirely too much time for input in the review process and would like

the process to proceed much faster.

Years ago when I belonged to the JCs, part of its credo was that

“Government should be of laws rather than men.” This principle should

be followed here.

JIM KREDER

Laguna Beach

Plan appeal little more than hurtful

I find it ironic that the very neighbor who is diligently fighting

our remodel project due to privacy issues sits in her second story

office window every evening overlooking our home and our lives. She

comes to our meetings with graphs and charts and pictures of our

885-square-foot home blown up so big that they’re almost life size.

She sends streams of letters to the Heritage Committee, Design Review

Board and City Council telling them how better to do their jobs,

insulting their intelligence.

Both the Heritage and Design Review Boards have passed our remodel

project. Our neighbor chose to appeal. She sits at her desk in that

window crusading against our modest 1,455-square-foot remodel as I

walk through my house and my yard in full visible view. What kind of

person spends that much wasted time on such an insignificant “cause”?

I’m trying to find the significance, I really am, but I just cannot.

This is a tough process for people who don’t have copious amounts

of time and money. My husband and I have two small children and we

both work. The project and the process have already taken so much of

our time and resources. We had invited our neighbors over on many

occasions to view our plans each time we had to make changes and each

time the very neighbors opposing the project never came. We had to

use the boards and councils as our platform for compromise. Yet all

the changes came on our part and not our neighbors behind us.

My husband and I are bombarded with revision “requests” from her

at each meeting and we comply each time. We have a family of four and

to downsize our house as many times and as much square footage as she

has asked has been a real hardship on us.

She is now asking us to move that wall -- which is a nonconforming

existing structure -- in five feet. What could this possibly

alleviate? It is clear that she is trying to make us as miserable as

possible in order to abort this project all together. Is there a

clearer message here as well?

We are involving our community to prove that we are not deceiving

our community. Our neighbor has printed some very false statistics

about our remodel plans and we feel the need to right those wrongs.

Please come by and view our remodel plans which are posted in our

front yard. The plans show the house and landscaping in its finished

state.

AMII SCHENK

Laguna Beach

Differing facts on Mountain Road home

Last week’s letters to the editor included a letter that purported

to provide “The Facts Regarding 550 Mountain Road,” (Coastline Pilot,

May 21) as presented by the property owner. Those facts are in need

of some clarification.

* The “year of planning, meetings and additional costs” alluded to

by the owner includes seven months of applying for and obtaining

approval for a one-story addition. The neighbors supported this

project, with its variances, in part because of the expressed needs

of the family and in part because of repeated assurances that there

would be no second story. Two days after receiving notification of

approval for the one-story project, the property owner submitted

plans to the city for a two-story addition. The family could be

living in the single story addition by now. The current delay is

because the owners changed their minds.

* The proposed rear yard set back for part of the home is indeed

20 feet. The proposed rear setback for the rest of the home is only

six feet. The six feet, among other things, is what caused the

council members to send the project back to Design Review to request

additional consideration be given to the neighbors’ privacy.

* At the City Council meeting the owner mentioned he was afraid he

was going to be compared to the Montage. Now he claims that his “home

has been likened to the Montage Resort.” He is the only one who has

ever made such comparisons.

* The owner stated that if this project is not approved, “the

character of our town will be diminished rather than enhanced.” On

the contrary, if as Councilman Wayne Baglin observed in reviewing

this project, the historic process is being used as a “license for

exploitation,” a very worthwhile ordinance will lose the support of

the community. That surely would be to the detriment of our town.

* The owner also claims, “The facts will confirm that the Design

Review Board and Heritage Board did the right thing.” The facts

actually show that neither Design Review nor the Heritage Committee

was given information about the true historic nature of the property.

Photos taken at the time the current owners bought the home show that

significant changes have been made to the front of the cottage since

that time, which call into question the historic integrity of the

home. The appeal to the City Council suggested that had the Heritage

Committee and the Design Review Board had this information, they

might have come to a different conclusion. Both Baglin and Councilman

Steve Dicterow agreed and suggested the project be sent back to the

Heritage Committee for further review. The other three council

members expressed similar concerns and voted to send the project back

to the Design Review Board with specific suggestions for changes.

* The property owners say they merely want to “stand up for our

rights.” Unfortunately, they see their rights as including the right

to build a project that has six separate variations from the building

code, all at the expense of the neighbors’ property rights and all

done under the cover of questionable historic status. (This was what

Baglin referred to as “loopholes morphing into black holes.”) No one

who opposes this project is opposed to the owners’ right to improve

their property. We simply want them to follow the same rules set

forth in the municipal code that the rest of us would have to follow

should we desire to improve our properties.

If you want to understand the real facts in this case, get a copy

of the video tape of the council meeting and decide for yourself if

the home that was submitted to the Heritage Committee and the Design

Review Board qualifies for historic status and the benefits that the

council has now said should not have been granted.

The appeal of the Design Review approval has nothing to do with

the Montage or neighbors trying to take away the owners’ property

rights. It certainly has nothing to do with anyone trying to prevent

a family from adding more space to accommodate their growing needs.

It has everything to do with the process of determining which homes

qualify for historic status, and therefore special consideration when

they come before the Design Review Board, and whether that process

was abused. In this case, it was.

TOM AND LYNN GILES

Laguna Beach

A working ecology center is needed

The Nix Nature Center’s groundbreaking events are a culmination of

generous contributions and good intentions. I wish I could have

participated more at the event. However, circumstances were such that

I was busy at a place next door to the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park.

At this place, known as Willowbrook, nature from the park overflows.

Willowbrook generates nature of its own and has some potential to

teach how we can help nature.

Our town needs a working ecology center with educational,

demonstrational and functional capacities. People in Laguna would

like to know the difference between mulch and compost or how to help

the native birds and butterflies or stop a fire with plant material.

Such a center can easily generate its own operating costs. Besides

the plants, produce, worms, compost, mulch, recycling capacity and

even bio-diesel fuel, the center could lease out garden plots. The

plots would be highly desirable, and would be adjacent to a guided

path through the wilderness with restoration projects that scouts,

clubs, students, the city and others would voluntarily get approval

for and proceed with.

“Laguna has changed so much.” people frequently say in a

disenchanted tone. A working ecology center would bring back the type

of charm these people miss.

It is true that regulating agencies need to look over a proposal,

and that it will take time to coalesce. However, it is a proposal

that in its initial composition has been presented to various people

in City Hall and to others with environmental interests. A project of

this nature could take place on the “reach 3” property as defined by

the creek rehabilitation committee otherwise known as the old Dewitt

property. There are other locations where sub-stations could be

established.

After appreciating nature, our next step is logically to care for

nature. I like to quote a phrase with my addition at the end.

“Remember the three Rs.” In order of importance “The three Rs are

Reduce, Reuse and Recycle” I like to add that “They become four with

Restore and enjoy more ... “

If you are interested or in agreement, please respond and do what

you can to pursue the four Rs where you are.

I can be reached at gene@ecogreengene.com.

GENE SOTTOSANTO

Laguna Beach

Thanks for seeing need for marine

At the Sat., May 22, city budget workshop, the City Council took a

step toward increasing the level of protection the city will provide

to one of our most valuable and threatened assets -- our Blue Belt.

The three council members in attendance agreed that now is the time

to recognize that the Blue Belt is a component of Laguna’s open space

and a new position should be added to the city roster, a marine

protection officer. This position would have primary responsibility

for educating people about marine protection and preservation and

enforcing existing and new protection laws and ordinances along

Laguna’s coastline.

City officials have come to realize that our coastline can no

longer be the forgotten natural open space asset in the city’s

portfolio of open spaces and parks. The open spaces surrounding our

city with the parks, beaches and tide pools contribute so much to the

quality of life for all of us who live and work here in Laguna Beach.

The Blue Belt and the Green Belt are two equally important

environmental elements that contribute to Laguna Beach’s beauty and

require protection.

We have learned, due in part to the experience of the Volunteer

TideWater Docents, that the effort required to preserve the life

found in the tide pools requires constant vigil and a level of

official enforcement. That official enforcement effort must have the

authority to back up volunteer docents when circumstances call for

support and have the ability to write citations for those who

egregiously break the law.

I applaud the members of the City Council who have taken this step

and look forward to seeing a Marine Protection Officer on our shores

this summer.

FRED SATTLER

Ocean Laguna Foundation

Coordinator, TideWater

Docent Program

Laguna Beach

Council seems to hear blue belt needs

Saturday morning the City Council met to work on the budget for

the year. This was my first time attending such a meeting and I was

amazed and gratified to see how many citizens were present to

participate.

After a 15-minute presentation of the city’s upcoming financial

situation, the mayor gave those in attendance a chance to give input

as to potential areas of need and interest.

The majority of the people in the audience were either wearing

TideWater Docent T-shirts or blue clothing in support of The Laguna

Blue Belt and had come to the meeting to underscore awareness of

ocean and tide pool issues. I was among the seven people who spoke to

this topic. I still feel strongly enough about what I said to repeat

it here.

I know that we in Laguna have taken our ocean and our tide pools

for granted. I did so too until I started to swim with my friends

five years ago and spent more time in the water and on the beach. The

things we saw shocked me out of my complacency and made me realize

that a precious natural gift was being lost. Three years ago, I

started to come to council meetings to tell what I had been seeing to

make the council aware of what was happening on our beaches. And

since then, the council has heard from countless others at meetings

and through letters to the editor in our local papers.

I know that the new budget will reflect the commitment of the City

Council to certain main issues. While making those important

decisions -- I ask council members to consider this: why would

visitors and other beach users value and preserve our ocean and tide

pools more than the City and residents of Laguna do?”

This general mind shift will not happen without consciously making

the ocean and ocean issues a priority. And when the ocean does

becomes a priority, then funds will be set aside that make a great

difference.

Council members, please -- as you look at the budget, consider the

ocean as our most precious resource. Make that commitment to give it

its fair share of the funds at your disposal. What you decide will

effect our lives for years to come.

By the comments and discussion of the member of the council that

were present, Mayor Cheryl Kinsman and Councilwomen Elizabeth Pearson

and Toni Iseman, I did feel heard. Yes, Laguna is not a town with

overflowing coffers and there are many needs. The City Council has to

be creative to accomplish much with little. But the funds will be

apportioned according to areas of priority. This is where we citizens

can make a difference.

Please write to each member of the City Council and let her/him

know that you want the ocean and our beaches and our tide pools

protected. Tell them that you want them to allocate some funds to

hire a marine enforcement/education officer to protect our special

and unique other “open space” -- the ocean and environs. This person

will make an incredible difference to each resident of Laguna Beach

and to their children and grandchildren. With your input, I have

confidence that the members of the City Council will act responsibly

and wisely to save Laguna’s most important asset.

NANCY BUSHNELL

Laguna Beach

Day labor center funding important

In response to the May 21 question on city funding for the day

labor center: Yes it was an appropriate/viable use of funding.

The Cross Cultural Council has effectively managed what was a

chaotic dynamic of the day laborers within Laguna Beach. Their work

has had a great impact on the lives of the day laborers and, in turn,

has been helpful for the citizens of Laguna Beach.

If the current day laborer system/program didn’t exist how much

worse would the state of fire preparedness be for those homes at

urban / wild land interfaces?

TIM MILLER

Laguna Beach

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

does not appear, it may be because of space limitations, and the

letter 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 (949) 494-8979; or send e-mail to coastlinepilot@latimes.com.

Please give your name and include your hometown and phone number, for

verification purposes only.