Commentary: City should keep its promises

Applicant Louis Longi and architect Horst Noppenberger for the proposed artist work-live project in Laguna Canyon recently wrote commentaries in local newspapers.

As we would expect, they make an emotional argument for this huge, poorly planned and intrusive project. Their commentaries demand rebuttal. The artist’s rendering of the proposed project shows a very modern building with trees towering above the structure and canyon hillsides and ridgelines serving as a backdrop, making the building appear to be very small in comparison.

In reality the building’s height, length and proximity to Laguna Canyon Road will completely obscure the hillsides and ridgelines on the eastern side of the canyon when viewed from the northbound lane of this “rural scenic highway.”

The opinion piece, like the rendering, distorted the facts about this 30-unit development proposed by Longi and the Dornin Investment Group. This 36-foot high, 250-foot long, 18,000-square foot apartment building (picture a gymnasium almost as long as a football field) dwarfs all of the surrounding structures in our small, quiet, eclectic rural neighborhood. Is this the image we want to project as visitors enter our town?

Historically, the Laguna Canyon Annexation Area (from El Toro Road to the Big Bend) was in the unincorporated part of the county. Laguna Beach induced the residents to join the city by offering sewer hookup and a specific plan; which we wrote with the help of Norm Grossman, then chairman of the planning commission, and Ann Larson, senior planner.

We were assured this specific plan would protect our community from intrusive development. The question is: Will the city keep its promise?

Noppenberger’s claim in the Laguna Beach Independent that the opposition to this project is “composed mainly of Laguna Canyon residents in the area of Sun Valley Road” is inaccurate. Although this opposition rightly originated in the neighborhood most directly impacted by the negative consequences of the proposed project, many of our most motivated activists are from other Laguna neighborhoods as well as environmentalists from other cities.

We are aware of no other light-industrial use buildings that have 30-plus full-time residents. Additionally, the Planning Commission has granted limited retail sales and three annual “events” without requiring a temporary use permit. We are concerned that the conditional use permit was granted without a limitation on the number of attendees, lack of a traffic study addressing weekend Laguna Canyon Road traffic, overflow of cars into our narrow streets and lack of adequate parking on site.

Noppenberger’s claim that “this project conforms to all of the applicable standards of the [Laguna Canyon Annexation Area] Specific Plan” would be laughable if not so dishonest. The Specific Plan cites five “special findings required for conditional use permits.”

“1) The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses.”

The height, size, mass and density of this use are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

“2) The proposed use is compatible with and does not detract from the rural atmosphere of the Laguna Canyon Annexation Area.”

This building looks like a modern apartment building and, consequently, detracts from the rural atmosphere of this area.

“3) The proposed use is not in conflict with the designation of Laguna Canyon as a scenic highway.”

Maintenance of views of ridgelines and hillsides is a requirement for scenic highway designation.

“4) The proposed use does not create a density which would compromise the environmental sensitivity of the area.”

The activity, noise and light created by the residents and visitors would not only disturb the tranquillity of our neighborhood but of the wildlife that frequent Laguna Creek for food and water.

“5) The proposed use will not result in a substantial increase in traffic generation or adversely impact vehicular circulation patterns.”

The residents and visitors utilizing the 47 parking spaces below this building are estimated in the traffic study to make 200 day trips. Many, if not most, will involve left turns onto and off of Laguna Canyon Road causing dangerous disruptions of the heavy traffic on this very busy state highway.

As you can see, this proposed use is inconsistent with all five requirements.

When Mr. Longi first came to our neighborhood, we, like most of you, supported his desire to build an eight-unit artist live-work project. We cannot, however, support this “for profit” 30-unit apartment building for artists and art students. This proposed project is not only an intrusion into a long-standing quiet rural community but an eyesore for everyone traveling on Laguna Canyon Road. That is for all of us, residents and visitors alike.

If you marched to Save the Canyon and, or feel that this proposed use is inappropriate in this location, please write to the City Council about your concerns and attend the next city meeting (probably in late March) regarding this proposed project to see if the city will keep its promise.

John A. Hamil, is the owner of Canyon Animal Hospital, vice president of the Laguna Canyon Property Owners Assn. and a Laguna Beach resident.