Letters to the Editor: Proposed changes do not remotely align with the Coast Inn’s historical integrity

Six weeks ago the attorney representing the investment group for the oceanfront mega-project Coast Inn and Coast Liquor “remodel” presented their proposal to the Laguna Beach City Council. At that meeting dozens of residents expressed serious apprehensions about the proposed project’s mass, scale and want of historical integrity. Rather than support the Planning Commission’s 5-0 vote to deny the project, the City Council instead referred the matter to a subcommittee for further discussion.

The same concerns articulated during public testimony at the Jan. 23 City Council meeting were again highlighted at the public subcommittee meeting. These included a huge, non-historical rooftop bar, extensive decking and swimming pool, “fantasy” patron and employee parking exemptions, intensified traffic and safety concerns, noise and light pollution, a grossly flawed trash pick-up proposal, serious view obstructions, burdensome impact on area neighborhoods and nearby commercial enterprises, and a height scheme triggering the need for massive structural reinforcement and variances.

The magnitude and inescapable consequences of this project’s very serious deficiencies underscore why the Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject it. Any clear-eyed observer can see that these proposed intensifications do not remotely align with the Coast Inn’s historical integrity. Because of its sensitive coastal location and its undeniable impact on the community, a project-specific environmental impact report (EIR) and a full review by the California Coastal Commission should be mandated before the city of Laguna Beach takes any further action.

Randy Lewis

Laguna Beach

*

Adapt Farivew for homeless housing

I would like to see the city and state look into adapting the hundreds of empty living spaces at Fairview Developmental Center into housing for the homeless. I believe it can accommodate more than the 237 residents now living there. At its peak in 1967 it housed 2,700 people. I would hate to see it developed for private use when it could be used for humanitarian purposes. I read in the March 1 Daily Pilot that O.C. United Way is working on helping the homeless and have also made this suggestion to them.

Charmaine Laurie

Costa Mesa

*

Referendum was wrong approach on development

Re. “Lawsuits settled in disputes over scuttled Museum House condo project in Newport Beach,” (March 2): The referendum leading to the original lawsuit was a direct result of poor planning in the city of Newport Beach. The referendum is a blunt instrument, similar to using a tourniquet on an injured limb. Referenda are temporary (only good for a year) and reactive.

Poor planning can be a result of a flawed General Plan, the city’s top-level planning document. Poor planning can result from not implementing the General Plan properly or completely. Poor planning can result from leadership (zoning administrator, planning commission and City Council) overriding and making exceptions via administrative actions and general plan amendments, which may result in spot zoning. The city has managed to follow all of these avenues to poor planning results.

The General Plan, though not perfect, should be carefully implemented and followed. Currently there are data in the General Plan that do not reflect reality, specifically Charter Section 423 Tracking Table for Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center). What many voters did not realize was that Measure Y was an attempt by the city to reconcile reality with what existed in the Statistical Area tables. All of the fluff, such as improving water quality and more money to the arts from developer fees, were the shiny objects to distract from the real issue: the tables needed to be changed and updated, but to do so triggered Section 423 of the city’s charter (Greenlight), the requirement that if certain limits are exceeded, the issue must go to a vote.

Tables are not very sexy, but all the other stuff was. Fortunately the voters saw through the ruse, soundly defeating Measure Y. The tables still do not reflect reality. The Museum House project should have gone to a vote without the need for a referendum and by extension avoiding the lawsuit. The City Council has the ability to make changes and updates to the General Plan without a vote of the citizens. The only time General Plan changes require a vote is if they exceed the limits set in Section 423 of the city’s charter.

The referendum of the Museum House project was used by Line in the Sand as a last resort after many months of working very hard to get the city leadership to deny the project. The resulting lawsuit only enriched the attorneys involved.

Nobody won, we all lost a lot of time and money. We all incurred a lot of aggravation. The need to use a referendum was an example of “Whack a Mole” and is indicative of poor planning. The city must follow Chapter 13 – Implementation Program of the General Plan — and keep the data up to date if future referenda and/or lawsuits are to be avoided.

It is time for the City Council to demand that the city staff update all General Plan tables with data reflecting the current land use reality. It is the council’s responsibility to make sure the general plan is being completely implemented as per Chapter 13 of the General Plan.

Dennis Baker

Board President, Line in the Sand PAC

Corona del Mar

How to get published: Email us at dailypilot@latimes.com. All correspondence must include full name, hometown and phone number (for verification purposes). The Pilot reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity and length.