Inconsistency will hurt the city The Planning...

Inconsistency will hurt the city

The Planning Commission meeting of Dec. 15 was not only a public

act of futility for those who spoke, but discouraging to all those in

the audience who took the time to come and listen to the bottom line

act of the commission on the Pottery Shack proposal.

An inconsistency reigns supreme with our planning commissioners,

not that this is new news. As a Village flatlander I would first like

to look back at the Oct. 27 Planning Commission meeting regarding the

Tortilla Flats project. Many neighbors surrounding Tortilla Flats

came with objections to the mid- to high-end restaurant. Many of the

objections were sound.

The commissioners listened to the proponents and opponents on this

project. The Planning Commission posed the following questions and

remarks to the Proponents:

1. Where will the employees park?

2. Hours of operation be restricted-could they eliminate

breakfast?

3. Noise abatement laws must be adhered to.

4. Valet parking analysis should be implemented.

5. Get with the neighbors and come up with a plan.

This list seemed doable for both sides. A follow-up meeting

between the Tortilla Flats owners and the neighbors took place Nov.

13, which I attended. Some original ideas were discussed. It was a

start.

Here is where the Planning Commission inconsistency concerning the

Pottery Shack begins. The Village Flatlanders and other opponents to

the Pottery Shack proposal gave their objections for the revised

plans -- increased square footage, increased seating of the

restaurant, hours of operation and increased parking problems. It all

fell on deaf ears -- except for Commissioner Robert Zur Schmiede who

tried to instigate a parking and traffic study, thank you.

The developer of the Pottery Shack land, Joe Hanauer, as well as

architect Morris Skenderian got up and began negotiating with the

Planning Commission after public comments were closed. None of the

questions posed to the Tortilla Flats owners were asked of Hanauer,

such as employee parking, hours of operation etc. Why? We are facing

a larger project for this property. Why does the commission have any

less requirements on the Pottery Shack proposal than the Tortilla

Flats proposal when many to most issues are the same?

The message sent by the Planning Commission to the Tortilla Flats

owners, and anyone else looking to open a business in this town is:

The rules, laws and ordinances are not the same for all, and those

living next to these projects for ever more do not matter.

We chose to live here in this community -- true -- and this is a

mixed-use area of town -- true -- but we foolishly and naively have

relied on the city officials, whether elected or appointed, to do

what’s best for us all.

We pay our taxes to keep this community running but I see that it

doesn’t stand up to big money, the art of persuasion or the

underlying threats of someone else from out of town maximizing the

property.

When will this community and our officials get it. Take a stand

against these community-eating pariah.

How big and how busy does Laguna need to be?

DARRYLIN GIRVIN

Village Flatlander

Neighborhood Assn.

Despite Iseman, the people have spoken

When Toni Iseman told several in town after the last City Council

election that she was taking off her gloves, those of us interested

in clean campaigning and a cooperative spirit hoped that she would be

hanging them up. Instead, she has become a bare knuckles fighter.

Kinsman won re-election in spite of Iseman’s and her support

group, Village Laguna’s, efforts. Clearly, Iseman and her pals are

angry that they didn’t achieve the council majority they had been

counting on, thus this recent article or “hit” against the Montage

and Mayor Elizabeth Pearson.

The Montage Resort is a world-class resort that brings the city

more than $3 million a year in revenues, that generates substantial

income to the school district and that created the opportunity for

all of us to have access to a public beach that was closed in the

past. Because of the work of the planning bodies in Laguna, we also

now have a public park that we can all enjoy.

A bit of history: Iseman is the only council member who voted

against the development of a resort on the Treasure Island property.

After the city’s planning bodies passed the re-zoning and use of a

resort, Iseman’s supporters, who were the opposers of the resort

project, attracted enough signatures for a referendum to overturn the

new zoning and resort use. In 1999, a vote of Laguna Beach voters was

held. The people spoke. The resort was approved. Clearly, Iseman and

Village Laguna were, and are, in the minority in Laguna Beach.

Iseman presents herself as the savior of Laguna Beach. The problem

is that her vision of what Laguna should be does not represent a

broad cross-section of the majority of Laguna Beach residents.

Her lack of real-world or business experience, her all or nothing

attitude to problem-solving, and lately, her negativity toward her

fellow council members and staff, are a disappointment and a

disadvantage to the citizens of Laguna Beach.

ARTHUR CASEBEER

Laguna Beach

Where’s the city that fought for land?

I have long been proud of Laguna Beach. Proud of its people,

traditions and the values the town has stood for: individuality;

creative expression; tolerance and compassion.

Residents worked to preserve the natural beauty of this hilly

enclave. In a bland Orange County with a tendency toward creeping

ostentation Laguna somehow remained true to itself.

The residents have a history of rising up and taking a stand. In

the 1970s we fought to stop high rise hotels on Main Beach, in 1989

we marched to save the canyon. In both cases, through tremendous

effort, the people of Laguna Beach were able to prevail. We took a

stand and because we did, we preserved the unique quality of our

town.

But things have radically changed. Am I the only one who thinks

something wrong is going on here? When I read the recent L.A. Times

article that tied present and past City Council members to a special

interest group seeking increasing control in Laguna, I expected an

outcry from the town’s citizens.

I haven’t heard one. Have we become sheep? Am I the only one in

Laguna disgusted by the way groups like the Montage are shaping our

elections, taking control of our City Council, the town and the land

surrounding it?

I have always believed in Laguna and I would like to once again be

proud, not ashamed, of the behavior of our mayor and City Council. I

expect the city to again protect its open spaces, to take a stand for

something more meaningful and lasting than higher bed taxes. What has

happened to the city who created the Laguna Greenbelt? What has

happened to our values?

SHARON MCERLANE

Laguna Beach

Pearson refreshing, Frank getting stale

Laguna Beach Mayor Elizabeth Pearson’s conciliatory (to gain

regard, good will, etc.) attitude is refreshing.

The first meeting of the council seemed to be going quite good

until it came to consulting with City Manager Ken Frank about the new

city clerk’s salary and the new Senior Center. Many citizens find

listening to Frank is embarrassing.

I couldn’t help but remember, while he was stumbling along, that

retiring City Clerk Verna Rollinger was elected seven times and

served all of the citizens of this great city 29 years. If the city

manager’s job was an elected office, Frank would have been gone years

ago, and because of his bungling of the Senior Center, which he has

already spent more than $100,000 of senior donated dollars for this

study and that study, the seniors have lost almost a $1 million in

withdrawn donations.

Yes, a new badly needed Senior Center will be built, because many

people will come forth and in fact, if you give $1,000 your name will

appear on a special donor’s wall in the reception area.

If you can give more money, which can be paid over a three year

period, a room or even the whole facility could have your name on it.

For me, Mayor Pearson has shown a new face, but most of this town

would agree it’s time to cancel Frank’s contract, pay him off, which

could actually save the city money in the long run and select a

search committee for a new city manager.

ROGER CARTER

Laguna Beach

Wishing for a more civilized council

I was so looking forward to a civilized City Council but with the

gloves off, we’ll have to hold on to our hats and forge ahead. It’s

going to be a bumpy ride.

MARTHA LYDICK

Laguna Beach

Pearson not bad guy, Montage not a monster

I read with disappointment the article on the Montage Resort that

was a “hit piece” on our mayor, the majority of our City Council and

the majority of the residents in our town in the Dec. 26 L.A. Times.

To infer that only the “old-timers” in Laguna Beach have values

and that the newer or younger people in Laguna Beach don’t appreciate

the character and uniqueness of our beautiful city is insulting.

To imply that the majority of Lagunans do not appreciate or like

The Montage Resort and what it has brought to our community is

misleading. Our family has lived in Laguna for 58 years and we were

among the majority of the residents that voted for the Montage

development.

And to attack our mayor, Elizabeth Pearson is a cheap shot. The

people in this county should know that three other people who sit on

our current City Council also endorsed a resort at the old Treasure

Island site. Only one person on our current council did not support

the creation of a resort, and that person is Toni Iseman.

The issues in the article related to Pearson were already

addressed locally by open, public letters to the papers by her.

Regarding the Beverly Hills testimony, Pearson indicated in a

public letter that she had spoken to the facts of the Montage Resort

at a Beverly Hills City Council meeting as it related to the

financial benefits to the city. The Montage Resort is adding more

than $300,000 a year, beginning this year. The revenues from the

Montage arrived just in time to offset the huge state losses. Just as

important, in her letter, she indicated that she paid for her own

transportation to the Beverly Hills meeting . As it related to Ernie

Schneider, her then fiancee’, another letter to the local papers from

Pearson (we all read it!) indicated that the company he worked for,

Hunsaker and Associates, was retained by the owners of the Montage,

and that he received no personal income from that retainer. She said

in the letter that he had left the employment of that firm prior to

her marriage. Laguna Beach residents all voted on the issue as to

whether or not to allow a resort to be developed here. The people

spoke. Why is it that the minority/opposing view continues to

discount this fact

PAT THOMAS

Laguna Beach

City must fight attack by developers

Laguna Beach is caught in a modern day gold rush that has

enveloped the South Orange County Coast, and modern day “prospectors”

are not adverse to buying their way into City Hall to get what they

want.

Our beautiful coves, beaches, parks, tiny shops, quint cottages

and our reputation as an renowned artist colony have all contributed

to the creation of our unique village personality. The very things

that make Laguna so desirable could be lost for ever. Is this what we

want? Our recent Visions Committee report says no.

If we thought that being surrounded by the green belt and the

adjoining declared wilderness areas would forever protect us from the

encroachment of urban sprawl, we must think again.

Just how safe and secure is our green belt and adjoining

wilderness from development? Just how far will our City Council go to

oppose (and stop) encroachment into the neighboring wilderness areas?

DON KNAPP

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.