Music in the Park has worn out...

Music in the Park has worn out its welcome

When the music in the park first began it was enjoyed by nearby

residents and attendees. Over the years the number of performances

has increased to too many weeks, and the amplification of music is

too loud. The level of noise is so loud we have to shut all windows

and doors to have a conversation or watch TV, and we live in the 800

block of Bluebird. So, from 4:00 P.M. until 7:30 P.M. we can’t have a

comfortable life in our home. We also can’t have guests on Sundays

from July until late September because of no available parking. The

Bluebird park concerts have gone from enjoyable to intolerable. Too

loud, too many weeks.

JIM BOKA

Resident parking is for residents

After attending the 2-23-05 Planning Commission hearing on the

Feasibility Study for Residential Preferred Parking, I came away with

the concern that we have not clearly directed our City staff on this

matter. Jennifer Murillo gave a detailed presentation and prepared a

thoughtful report, but it all seemed somehow wrong for our town. The

report cited parking programs and issues in cities such as Beverly

Hills and Davis (not under California Coastal Commission oversight)

and several large, old, metropolitan Los Angeles coastal communities,

like Redondo Beach. None of them really fit my perception of Laguna

Beach.

At the break, I asked Commissioners Johnson & Dietrich why

affluent cities like Carmel-by-the-Sea and San Marino were not

studied. Commissioner Johnson told me that San Marino was not a

coastal community and Ms. Murillo told me that Carmel had no parking

plan.

Imagine my surprise when I checked out Carmel’s city website,

https://www.carmel california.com. They do have a parking permit

program as well as their General Plan (updated in 2003) posted. I

would urge anyone interested in parking problems in Laguna Beach to

review the Carmel website. Their mission statement clearly addressed

their business parking as subordinate to residential character. Their

Circulation Element details this concept: business parking (including

employee parking) stays in commercial districts and residential

parking is for residents and summer beachgoers.

It seems to me that we could use a little help and guidance from

Carmel. Even though their population is only about 4,081, they have

their own police and fire departments, planning commission, design

review board, art & heritage commission, public works and beaches,

library, a beautiful greenbelt and yes, a thriving commercial

district.

Perhaps if we direct our City staff to visualize Carmel instead of

Redondo Beach as our model, they will effectively sustain our

beautiful, charming community.

BETSY BREDAU

El Morro money doesn’t add up

Assemblyman Chuck Devore (“Sounding Off: 2/25/05”) begins his

justification for introducing AB328 and AB329, bills granting 30-year

leases to currently-illegal trailers at El Morro, by saying, “My El

Morro bills are entirely about money and nothing more.”

It’s not about the money.

Here’s why: The trailer park offer in AB328 is a bad deal for

state taxpayers. Fifty million dollars for 30 years for 300 trailers

means that the average rent for ocean-view, or ocean-front mobile

homes, steps from the sandy beach, will be $462 per month, lower than

the current average rent of $610/month..

These are not market-rate rents, there is no allowance for

inflation, and this is not a good-faith offer.

AB329 skips the $50 million up front, and instead ups the rents to

$3.2 million a year, again without allowance for inflation. That’s

$888 per trailer/month, still below market rate. Anyone want to guess

what that will mean in 2015 dollars? Or 2035 dollars? And how can a

dribble of money over 30 years help today’s budget shortfall?

At Lido Peninsula Resort in Newport Beach, beachfront (but not

oceanfront) trailer rents today range from $1,200 to $3,800/month.

Trailers at Point Dume in Malibu are worth $500,000 to $1 million,

and rents average $1,200/month (and Malibu is rent-controlled). Both

are privately owned trailer parks. (LA Times, 2/13/05)

In contrast, the state park campground and day-use parking is

projected to generate close to $1.3 million a year initially, while

providing full public access, thus fulfilling the mission of Crystal

Cove State Park.

So what’s it about? It’s about a false sense of entitlement by the

trailer park residents, deep pockets, and political connections.

Meanwhile, we get obscene e-mail, trailer park residents threaten

process servers, and Mr. Devore attacks state park officials who live

onsite to provide full-time security at Crystal Cove.

No, it’s not about the money. At least not the money Chuck Devore

wants to talk about.

ELISABETH M. BROWN

President,

Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.

Airport needed at El Toro

Now that El Toro is available, the cities of Los Angeles and

Fullerton have moved with vigor to acquire the airport and run it.

Orange County has failed to do it themselves, while Irvine sponsored

a phony great park. The land-grabbers of El Toro didn’t realize that

any federally recognized operator of airports can operate El Toro

International Airport. The airport is needed, the houses are not, the

park was a sham, and this is what is happening.

DONALD NYRE

Newport Beach

Donald Nyre

So much For Montage good will

At the City Council meeting on Feb. 1, Montage Resort & Spa was

granted a “Conditional Use Permit” (CUP) for a 56-car private gated

employee parking lot at the UNOCAL site on Coast Hwy. The CUP will

expire in two years so that they would be compelled to come up with a

plan for their larger parking problem (at least 370 off-site parking

places that they are currently using). Mr. Claypool of Montage agreed

to this and all other measures and conditions set forth by the City

Council at that meeting.

Councilmember Kinsman and [Mayor] Pearson-Schneider both wanted to

allow Montage no expiration and thereby no oversight by the City and

no further requirements for Montage to deal with the larger

employee-parking problem whatsoever. Council members Iseman and Egly

both voted against a CUP but were in favor of a “Temporary Use

Permit” (TUP) so that Montage would have to deal with their larger

parking problem. (It’s been three years!)

Thanks to Councilman Dicterow’ s insistence that the CUP be

temporary and expire in two years, the council sent a message to

Montage that this tiny parking lot was in no way the final answer to

their larger employee parking problem. All five council members

agreed that this parking lot was not a fix to the larger Montage

employee-parking problem. The CUP also required Montage to operate in

good faith with the city and the residents to come up with a better

plan to deal with their parking mess.

After agreeing to the conditions of the Feb. 1st CUP, Montage now

wants a new meeting that has been scheduled for March 15th, at which

time they will ask that all regulatory conditions be removed.

Included items to be removed are:

No Expiration date on the CUP (this would remove any further

controls and monitoring of the City Council in future and basically

say to Montage they have done all they need to do as far as employee

parking);

Montage employees shall not park on public streets of parks and

shopping centers as a condition of their employment (this would

ignore the fact that Montage employees and services are violating the

parking rules now and continue to do so;

“In addition, the Montage shall work with the City in good faith

to examine the overall parking needs in the South Laguna area,

independent of any project-related requirements pursuant to the LCP

[Local Coastal Plan] and implementing CDP [Coastal Development

Permit] for the project.” (Removing this language shows that that

Montage doesn’t even acknowledge the size of the problem and believes

they have met all their off-site parking needs with this postage

stamp parking lot at the Unocal site.)

It should now be obvious to all that Montage has no intention to

even admit to their parking problem let alone deal with it in good

faith. (They want to gut the conditions of the CUP they agreed to).

They Montage must be dragged -- kicking and screaming like a

little child -- to make them fix their employee parking problem with

a large multi-level parking structure(500 cars) located on their Ben

Browns property or the Aliso Beach parking lot on the inland side of

Coast Hwy. The County is open to the Aliso Beach plan and Montage

could be given ownership as condominium to the two upper levels for

the price of one of their custom home lots! This would put an end to

their three-year parking problem once and for all.

It has come to my attention by way of a security employee at

Montage that the real number of numbered employee parking permit

stickers issued is closer to 2,700. The real number of employee cars

has been covered up by Montage’s selective use of statistics, FTE

(full time equivalent). This means that all 900 FTEs at Montage are

actually three part-time employees for each (in other words they have

three times the cars they are admitting to.)

When asked, Montage management would not verify the number of

stickers they have issued. Is this another example of their good

faith and openness as put forth by Montage CEO Fuerstman in a his

Coastline article (Feb 18th), which quotes him saying, “They

[Montage] have learned the importance of working with the community,”

and “If we improve the level of trust then we will not be vilified

for what we might do”?

SEAN SCHLUETER

Laguna Beach