Board parks in a testy spot

New Laguna Beach Unified School District Superintendent Bob Fraisse had his knuckles rapped recently at a strained Design Review Board hearing in which board members blamed the district for the area’s parking problems.

The district was proposing a 1,000-square-foot addition to its main offices on Blumont Street near Laguna Beach High School.

Four parking spaces which are slated to be removed due to safety concerns became a bone of contention.

“One thing that I’m going to speak to you about is being a good neighbor, and the congestion and the parking in this area is not a result of your neighbors; it’s a result of you,” board member John Keith said during the meeting.

“To come in here with the opportunity to keep four parking spaces and kind of cavalierly dismiss it as unsafe doesn’t sit real well here. This area needs those parking spaces. If they’re unsafe, fix them; don’t cover them.”

Board members cut into the district’s plans at the project’s first hearing July 26.

The project was later approved at an Aug. 9 meeting, following an apology to Fraisse by a board member and fence-mending exchanges with City Manager Ken Frank.

“DRB’s response was unexpected because the school district had been led to believe that our project, which had no view blockage or public opposition, would be easily approved,” said school board president Betsy Jenkins.

No students would use the new addition, which will be used to house the district’s four-person information technology department and its equipment; there also will be no plumbing or sewage facilities in the extension.

“It was also an unpleasant welcome for our new superintendent, Bob Fraisse, who is new to city politics,” Jenkins said. “Since the meeting, however, both the city and Ken Frank have worked to reduce ill will and find solutions which have allowed the construction to begin. So I guess all’s well that ends well.”

The meeting followed the enactment last year of a code of conduct for project applicants and board members.

Fraisse, who had been on the job for about two weeks at the time of the first meeting, said the project doesn’t require a city permit, as oversight on school properties is typically performed by the Division of the State Architect.

However, it does require a Coastal Development Permit, which is why the district went to the city’s Design Review Board.

For the permit to be approved, the board had to find that the project is in compliance with the city’s General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan, and that it would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts.

The board could not make observations on any other attributes of the project.

“You’ve heard from the community about the size and scale and the design of that [project] as well, which I’m sure we would all love to give you comments on, but we’re not allowed to do that,” board chairwoman Eve Plumb said dryly toward the end of the first meeting July 26.

Fraisse was joined at the hearing by District Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Norma Shelton and District Facilities and Grounds Director Eric Jetta.

Parking was the most controversial issue between the agencies.

The four parking spaces out of more than 300 total in the district lot will be eliminated due to unrelated safety reasons, regardless of whether the extension project was approved.

This worried board members, who said parking in the area is already difficult.

Fraisse said as there will be no increase in staff, the district didn’t see the need to create additional parking spaces.

But board member Leslie LeBon said the city requires four parking spaces to be created per 1,000 square feet of office space.

“Think about it, you guys,” LeBon said. “You’ve got already a serious parking problem because of the high school students that you’re sharing your parking with. Your neighborhood is already impacted seriously with student parking and employee parking. What’s the deal?”

Fraisse said the district already was looking at how to alleviate the parking issue with Frank.

Board member Ilse Lenschow said she couldn’t make the finding (or legal justification) that the project is in compliance with city policies, describing her difficult afternoon drive from the Top of the World neighborhood.

“Obviously you have a serious parking situation there,” she said.

The other board members agreed with Lenschow, saying they also were unable to make the finding.

The district’s timetable for the project was another source of scrutiny.

The district explained that framing and initial prep work for the project would take one month; the project would then be completed a month later, out of the way of students wishing to park in the district lot.

LeBon voiced incredulity at the district’s plans.

“So you’re saying that it’s only going to take you a month to build that?” she asked with a skeptical laugh.

Shelton assented.

“You have some great contractors,” LeBon said. “I’m an architect, OK? I know how things work here in town, too, and you want to build about 1,000 square feet; and if you can build that in two months, hey, I want your contractor’s name, because that’s generally what I would consider impossible.”

Fraisse replied the district’s prior modernization projects have been on time and under budget.

Ben Simon, who lives near the district offices, said he was in full support of the project but was concerned about the proposed ridge height as well as the location of the construction staging area.

The addition would use clerestory windows for natural light, which would be at the top of the building.

Board member Caren Liuzzi asked whether it would be possible to have the same lighting effect if the clerestory windowed area were lowered.

Fraisse said such a move would require a complete redesign, which would cause construction during the school year.

LeBon asked whether the addition could be put in between the district’s two existing office buildings.

Shelton said due to the elevation of the site, it would be extremely difficult and expensive to build there.

Jetta said the construction will be staged in the district parking lot.

Fraisse said all construction items will be kept on district property on Laguna Canyon Road when they are not in use.

“On the face of it, it would seem that this is a fairly simple little project, and since we don’t usually speak on school board whatever-you-do in the way of architecture or anything, we usually don’t get to see any of this,” Plumb said.

“It would appear that this little project could create a domino effect of trouble,” she added.

The board ultimately gave the district the option to continue the hearing until Aug. 9, which the district accepted.

“I think we need a little time to reflect on the comments tonight,” Fraisse said. “They frankly have caught us by surprise. This was not the staff input that we received moving forward to this issue tonight.”

Fraisse said the board was very cordial to the district at the second hearing; the parties reached a decision that the parking lot will be restriped to created five additional parking spaces.

He added that there are no hard feelings between the board and district, and that it was a learning experience for the district.

“What appears to be a small issue obviously has tentacles that are more complex,” he said.