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.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.