A sad sign that we are in...

A sad sign that we are in an election year

We have written before about this problem and it just keeps on

happening with greater frequency. A neighbor told us about passing

our house and noticing a man taking our political signs, when our

neighbor stopped his car to observe, the man “gave him the finger.”

This kind of action is really beyond my imagination of the audacity

of people on our streets.

The other incident that has been reported to us was one of our

city officials who left a house, walked across the street, removed

two Cheryl Kinsman signs and put them in her car. I am sure that if

she really wanted a Kinsman sign any of us would have been delighted

to deliver them to her.

Thank heavens this will end next week.

ANN W. MCDONALD

Laguna Beach

Candidates deserve respect for trying

I respect greatly our freedoms to speak out and the courage our

local paper has to print individual or groups desire to communicate

publicly. I do however take issue with those that have turned our

local election campaigns into shameful character assignations by

using half truths and transferred assumptions.

I do not always agree with our elected officials but I do respect

the time and effort they give in doing their best (as they see it) to

improve our community. With the horrible ads I see in opposition to

some of our neighbors wishing to run for public office, it becomes

quite obvious why good people will not want to subject themselves,

their families and their business to such abuse. Consequently, I fear

our choices in the future can become very limited

Lets do our best to hold Laguna elections and those that choose to

run and serve to a higher standard.

People willing to serve deserve better, Laguna Beach deserves

better, and or electorate deserves no less.

HERB LIEBERMAN

Laguna Beach

Bark Park is fine place for the skate park

Re: “City waits to decide on skate park,” Coastline Pilot, Oct.

22. The city should make a positive decision to go ahead with the

skate park project.

The youth of this town have very few places to play and exercise,

that are safe from our heavy traffic and many dangerous obstacles.

As anyone who lives here knows, our streets are narrow and heavily

traveled by locals and tourists.

Also, Laguna Beach traffic is dangerously fast, not just through

the town on Coast Highway, but also along the secondary streets. It

is a wonder why more children and adults, pedestrians, bikers,

skaters, etc. are not injured. I know that our police department will

agree.

I am a dog owner and lover, and I find many places to run my dog,

but I love my children more. Let’s give our children the healthy and

safe places to play and socialize.

B.A. CUDDY

Laguna Beach

Don’t mix skaters with Bark Park

The proposal to locate the skate park at the Bark Park is a

disaster waiting to happen.

The grandiose plan of the YMCA, which includes a snack shop and

other facilities, will attract outside elements, generate traffic

problems and endanger the kids who attempt to reach it by skating on

Laguna Canyon Road. Moreover, high-pitched skate noise will terrorize

the dogs in the nearby animal shelter and the Bark Park.

Proposals of this type should involve input from the broad

interests of residents of Laguna Beach through a referendum and not

from the agenda of a small but vocal minority. The City Council

should be acting on information from some 26,000 Laguna residents --

not from the few that are present for the council meetings!

MANFRED E. WOLFF

Laguna Beach

Dip is no place for a house

We are responding to the Oct. 15 letter written by Michael

Hallinan regarding Jeff Garner’s proposed Dip House at 1530 Glenneyre

St. To the best of our knowledge Hallinan is the lone resident to

publicly support to the project. Conversely, because of safety,

health, view and environmental concerns, more than 100 residents have

signed a petition that reflects opposition to Garner’s intended

building.

We also find it curious that Hallinan has not attended the

numerous Design Review Board and council meetings which would have

clarified for him many of the issues raised in his letter. Quoting

from Hallinan’s letter we respond as follows (Hallinan’s comments are

in quotes):

1) “Where was their concern for this environmentally sensitive

area when they built their homes along the same canyon?”

The operative word is “along.” Garner is attempting to build a

home in the canyon flood plain, not on the canyon rim.

2) “The safety issues they raise make little sense. There has been

a house directly across the street from the proposed site for more

than half a century ... “

In fact, there is a guard rail directly across the street from the

proposed project. The guard rail displays evidence of accidents. The

view, from the existing house across the street, is clear in both

directions. The applicant’s view of cars approaching the dip is not

clear. The greatest safety concern is that cars traveling north on

Glenneyre Street will need to stop in the dip to allow entry and

departure at the proposed building site. Motorists will not see the

cars entering or leaving the Dip House in time to stop.

3) “Central to this matter is a basic question of property right

... is that right overshadowed by the self-interests of a few

neighbors?”

The applicant has admitted that he was always aware of the many

inherent problems associated with the 1530 Glenneyre St. site. Garner

took a gamble and purchased the property for a fraction of a like,

problem-free lot. If there were no public safety issues, if there

were no environmental issues and if the property was not in a flood

plane, the applicant would not have to be going through this process.

4) Each encounter with the Design Review Board and City Council

has only served to magnify the problems at this building site. The

owner has refused the offers has refused the offers made by the city

to buy or trade his property. Garner has chosen to put his time and

money into a project which is ill advised. Lower Bluebird

Neighborhood Assn. urges the Design Review Board and City Council to

consider the health, safety and environmental issues here raised by

taxpaying residents of Laguna Beach.

JAMES AND SANDRA SIEG

Lower Bluebird

Neighborhood Assn.

Laguna Beach

Is design review task force up to task?

The Design Review Task Force is supposed to determine the cause of

animosity in the city of Laguna Beach building approval process, and

recommend what, if anything, can be done about it. Judging from

testimony at an Oct. 12 open forum, that is a big task that will

require the task force to follow where the truth and common sense

leads.

The Design Review Board process is unduly and unnecessarily

frustrating because of both procedural disorder and substantive

disarray in its proceedings. This is aggravated by the fact that

there is the appearance of formality in the review board process, but

in some critical respects there is an informality and sloppiness that

gives people good reason to feel they have been treated unfairly.

“Applicants” and “opponents” are treated in some ways as actual

parties, in the legal sense, to an adversarial adjudicatory

proceeding, but they do not really have the same rights and burdens

as real parties of interest to an adjudicative process.

Because residents who come before it are subject to the broad

administrative discretion and authority of the review board, they

tend to direct at each other the anger they have toward the review

board.

I believe the impact on our quality of life is far greater than we

realize. I know people who were involved in creating the review

board, and their mantra is that we don’t want to end up like Redondo

Beach. I agree. However, we could end up in our own

Redondo-Beach-of-the-mind if we don’t do something to make the review

board process more user-friendly.

I know of neighbors who deeply hate one another over issues that

were inflamed by the review board process, and reconciliation seems

impossible. We are well on the way to becoming a psychologically

besieged and socially embattled people.

In my own experience, by refraining from exercising my rights

under the regulatory process to retaliate against my neighbor, we

were able to de-escalate our feud. Now we are good neighbors and have

been able to settle issues without involving the city. Sadly, I think

the kind of reconciliation we have achieved is the exception rather

than the rule.

The review board process is conspicuously becoming ever more

susceptible to political influence and City Hall intrigues. People

who believe in the review board role need to be concerned about its

long term viability, and should support the task force mission to

address these problems.

Looking elsewhere may be helpful, we also need to look inward at

what we really know best, which is what is going on right here in our

town. We all know there is a lack of standards for the review board

to follow. As I told the task force at its public forum on Oct. 12,

the problem takes two forms.

First, there are serious procedural issues. For example, in a

quasi-judicial process to regulate the property rights of residents,

there is a minimal standard of due process that is breached when the

review board receives and relies upon information and materials

provided by one party without the knowledge of the other party. In my

own case, I requested access to the exhibits and materials submitted

by the other party, and my request was denied in a manner that can

only be described as arrogant.

It is a cliche to say the process is too “subjective.” What does

that really mean? Well, it means the people, acting through the City

Council, have given the review board administrative discretion so

broad that the process is unpredictable to a reasonable person trying

to satisfy Design Review Board requirements.

Several witnesses recommended to the Task Force that we create a

zone of allowance based on the scale of development in the

neighborhood within which review board authority would be restricted.

The effect of doing that would be to focus the discretionary

authority of the review board on proposed building or development the

goes beyond that zone of predictability.

It is in that realm of building beyond what should be a clear and

reasonable zone of allowance that the real battle to prevent runaway

and out of control development must actually be fought. Yet, the

credibility of the regulatory process and political support for the

review board is being eroded and squandered on the regulation of

building that is actually below the level of impact on the community.

It is possible to prevent out of control mansionization and impose

rational limits on development, but do it through a process that is

far more. Some relatively simple reforms and adjustments in the

review board process could promote managed development that respects

property rights of homeowners, sustains village heritage and reduces

animosity.

Whether you agree with any particular reform of the Design Review

Board that is being proposed or not, those who care about the review

board process should attend the next public forum and join the

discussion.

HOWARD HILLS

Laguna Beach

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