MAILBAG - Nov. 10, 2006

Neighbors not reason revocation hearing put off

This letter is in reference to the report by Barbara Diamond about the City Council hearing Oct. 17 to revoke an eight-year-old Design Review approval at 29 Bay Drive.

In her article, Diamond paints the neighbors to be at fault and states that the hearing was continued for their “failure to comply” to make information available in accordance with city council directives. Her reporting is utterly inaccurate.

The fact is, the neighbors had their required materials into city hall a day early, and it was attorney Gene Gratz — the lawyer for the property owner (Griswold) — who missed his deadline for submittal by one day. Gratz even admitted that he was a day late during the hearing.

Expert testimony by one of the most prestigious engineering firms in Orange County, Hunsaker & Associates, was presented during the Oct. 17 hearing.

At the hearing, it was none other than Richard Hunsaker himself who presented the firm’s findings. Not surprisingly, there was not one word of Hunsaker and his expert testimony in Diamond’s biased report.

Hunsaker & Associates has concluded that [the Griswold project] architect altered topographical information on the site plan at 29 Bay Drive compared with the correct Toal Engineering Topographical Survey.

The alteration is 10 feet off to the benefit of the Griswolds, but to the detriment of Three Arch Bay, and that is the real reason everyone will be back at 3 p.m. on Dec. 5 (not Nov. 5 as Diamond wrote twice).

The City Council is being fair by allowing Conrad more time to respond to the Hunsaker & Associates report, because when City Council members questioned him about his suspicious survey alteration, Gratz refused to allow Conrad to answer. That, too, is not surprising; he has the right to remain silent.

CRAIG MILLER

Laguna Beach

Schools should spend tax money or return it

The school board should give our money back!

I don’t have kids, therefore I rarely pay attention to the school issues except when they need more money from us, the taxpayers. They needed money and we voted in the bond.

Now the school board is not spending it on the kids and is giving it to the county to invest. I can invest my own money. Use the money on programs for the kids or give it back.

STEVE MANAHAN

Laguna Beach

City manager isn’t watching out for environment

In your article on the Coastal Commission allowing an appeal of the St. Catherine’s School project because it may be too close to stream beds, I was absolutely astounded to read City Manager Ken Frank took a strong exception because concern for polluted water runoff might increase his work load and cause some delay for property owners.

He’s supposed to be protecting our environment. And, the good school principal, Pat Prerost, said this will impact the school’s viability and the ability to provide a suitable learning environment. How? By possibly having them move a building 10 feet from the stream bed?

Had St. Catherine’s been honest and open about their intentions from the start, this delay may have been averted. What blatant disregard for our beaches and ocean. How appalling! Where are their priorities? Is this lack of respect for due process and for our environment what the school is teaching their students? Give me a break.

The city has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for polluted beaches and the ocean. Aliso Creek is a current hotbed because of urban pollution. A current council campaign issue is about cleaning our beaches, and, these two administrators couldn’t care less. Wake up, St. Catherine.

I can’t see how anyone moving to our beautiful town would mind waiting for a Coastal Commission report before doing something to their house, nor would a current resident mind including such a delay in their remodeling plans for the sake of helping to protect our beaches and ocean. Just put the delay in your plans.

Thank you, Lisa Marks, for forcing this issue. Obviously, city management and the school administrators couldn’t care less. They should be replaced.

Since they unbelievably extended his contract, I am asking the City Council to give Ken Frank a list of priorities that reflect the needs of the city and the citizens.

As his personal list of priorities slowly unveils, it explains why there are so many issues in town that go against the well-being of its citizens.

JOHN SELECKY

Laguna Beach

Coastal review unfair to school, students

It’s a shame that local school kids have to pay the price for bureaucratic empire-building. According to an article in last week’s paper, St. Catherine’s remodel project will now most likely be headed for a time-consuming and expensive review by the California Coastal Commission. This in spite of the fact that city staff has adamantly maintained that the project is in compliance with the city’s certified local coastal plan.

The review process for St. Catherine’s will be thorough and it should be; but by allowing it to be appealed by anyone to the Coastal Commission creates a significant burden. And let’s not forget upon whom that burden lays: kids attending classes in a 50-year-old facility.

Parents at St. Catherine’s have raised the funds to remodel their school. Imposing additional and unnecessary review by the Coastal Commission is unwarranted and unfair. The price for delay will be borne by the kids who deserve to be educated in a safe and modern facility.

TATIANA FERGUSON

Laguna Beach

Bogus letter is yellow journalism

I am specifically writing this letter to you, Cindy Frazier, and the readers of the Coastline Pilot to say you are no longer believed regarding the George L. Dodgson letter fiasco. First, you wanted us to believe that you would not have printed his letter had you suspected it was bogus and asked us to believe that you thought it was legitimate even though you weren’t able to legitimize it.

You said you called the phone number he gave and discovered it was a fax and then checked the phonebook but found no George L. Dodgson listed. You did no other investigation, and instead of doing what any reputable newsperson would do and not print such an obviously bogus letter, you went ahead and printed it anyway.

Your apology in the next week’s paper for printing this letter was not very believable because with very little effort I found out there was only one George L. Dodgson listed for the entire U.S. and that was in the state of Washington.

As soon as I read the letter, I knew something was fishy (and I’m not even an editor), and after looking in the local phone book, I checked the white pages on the Internet. And so we’re left to wonder why you didn’t avail yourself of this simple and easy resource, and not take your job as editor more seriously.

Then, not to let sleeping dogs lie, you compound your supposed mistake by printing an anonymous letter even though your statement about the paper’s policy was, “We can’t publish an anonymous or pseudonymous letter … “ You went on to say that you were publishing it in the hopes of allowing this person to try to make amends and that you are just printing “some excerpts.”

The “some excerpts” amounted to 3- 1/2 columns, and the only thing “George” apologized for was that the original letter “missed the right notes of lampoon and satire.”

This second letter was not an apology. It was a thinly veiled attempt to keep the maligning he did in the first letter very much alive. This individual is clever and devious, and you’ve aided and abetted him in this hoax. We might have believed that you were so naive as to be fooled once, but not twice.

This is the worst case of yellow journalism that this town has seen in a long time. I’m embarrassed for you and your paper.

JOHANNA FELDER

Laguna Beach