Aliso Creek plan scrutinized

Redevelopment proposals for properties owned by Athens Group in South Laguna canyons came under scrutiny Monday night at a public meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission.

“On an issue of this magnitude, it is critical that we have maximum public involvement,” Planning Commissioner Norm Grossman said. “I thought people did a good job of doing what you are supposed to do in a scoping session, which is to identify areas of concern and to suggest alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR.”

The usual comment period is 30 days for an initial study that deems an EIR is necessary. The period was almost doubled for the Athens Group projects in Aliso Canyon and the Aliso Lots, formerly known as Driftwood Estates. The scoping session was scheduled before the May 30 deadline.

Both written and oral comments were accepted. Written comments may be submitted until the deadline to Senior Project Manager Kathy Lottes at [email protected] or by regular mail to her at City Hall, 505 Forest Ave., Laguna Beach 92651.

Another comment period will be opened when the draft EIR is made public, probably before the end of the year.

Alternative proposals required

A report is required by the California Environmental Quality Act to include a range of reasonable alternatives to the applicant’s proposal that would feasibly attain most of their basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant adverse effects of the project. Comparative merits of the alternatives are evaluated in the document.

The notice of preparation of an EIR for the Athens Group projects included three alternatives to the applicant’s proposal the for resort property in Aliso Canyon:

 Provision of alternate access through county parking lot, which would require a bridge across the creek and a four-way signal on Coast Highway that would allow people to make legal left-hand turns onto the highway;

 A limit on development of already developed areas of the property;

 A prohibition on development within the 25-foot setback from the creek and other means of fuel modification.

Two alternatives were included in the initial study for the Aliso Lots; no project at all and a reduction in the number of lots from nine to six, with access limited to an extension of Driftwood Drive.

“I would ask for a zero-impact alternative on the Hobo/Aliso ridge,” said Theresa Sehi, a Laguna Beach resident.

The joint EIR did not sit well with some members of the audience Monday.

“I have never seen two separate projects in one EIR,” said Carolyn Wood, president of the Laguna Canyon Conservancy. “It is only fair to separate them. The only thing they have in common is the ownership.”

The EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project, but must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that would foster informed decision making and public participation, according to Community Development Director John Montgomery.

Objectives conflict

Athens Group listed 12 objectives in the initial study, the first being to redevelop the existing inn and golf course so as to serve the needs of visitors to the region and the local community for golf-based recreation with resort lodging, restaurant, spa and residential facilities.

“The project offers many important benefits,” said Carl Koski, a member of the Laguna Beach Taxpayers Assn.

He cited the dedication of open space proposed by Athens Group and the claims of improved water quality in the creek, not to mention significant economic impacts.

“The increased property tax will provide funds for schools and city services,” Koski said.

Former Mayor Ann Christoph, however, was among the commentators at the meeting who opposed a residential component in the project.

Landscape architect Bob Borthwick said steps were taken decades ago to prevent urbanization of the Aliso Creek corridor.

“No residential developments were approved to preserve the sanctity of the canyon for all time,” he said.

Although not required in the EIR, city objectives were identified as follows:

 Provide visitor-serving/resort commercial uses on the site;

 Provide public open space/recreation; and

 Limit the degradation of open space and wetland habitat on the project site that may occur with increased public access.

Top of the World resident Gene Felder suggested the first goal should be to improve the natural resources.

“There appeared to be a consensus on the three objectives including changing the wording in No. 3 to ‘enhance the open space,’ rather than ‘limit degradation,’ Grossman said.

A “no project” alternative is required for evaluation.

“No one is advocating ‘no project’ — they are just advocating a responsible project,” said environmental activist Derek Ostensen.

Ostensen said the project should be consistent with city policies, a position also endorsed by Elisabeth Brown, speaking for Laguna Greenbelt Inc., Environmental Committee member Lisa Marks, and Barbara Metzger on behalf of Village Laguna, who cited the open space policy to minimize grading.

“The project should follow city codes,” said Environmental Committee member Greg O’ Loughlin.

Grading of the “Aliso Lots” will be exported to supply fill for the proposed elevation of the flood plain, which violates another city policy, Metzger said

“The flood plain elevation is not preserving land forms,” Metzger said.

Christoph said Aliso Canyon is the birthplace of Laguna and that the EIR should consider the preservation of its character, including a grove of eucalyptus trees. The trees are not native, but they have been in Laguna so long, most people don’t realize they are emigrants.

Others in the audience supported the removal of all non-native vegetation.

In any case, adverse impacts will have to be mitigated or overridden by the degree of public benefit.

Items viewed as a public benefit include a reduction in creek water pollution, completion of the long-desired mountain to sea trail and for some, financial rewards for the city.

“There will be a significant positive financial impact that will spill over to other businesses,” said Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Rose Hancock.

Cooperation urged

Chamber board member Kimberly Stuart said differing views of the project are valuable.

“So many of us have lived here a long, long time when the town wasn’t so developed. But we have to have a positive attitude and work with Athens Group because they are here,” Anita Dobbs said.

But that doesn’t mean she is not concerned about the impact of an estimated 67% increase in traffic on Coast Highway.

“There is an old saying: ‘No pain, no gain,” said Parking, Traffic and Circulation Committee member Dennis Myers. “This project will live up to it.

“I just think the city should get something out of it.”

Performing arts center

Myers proposed the construction of a badly needed city-owned performing arts center and meeting facility, the only really different component to be proposed for the project, as most other comments had been voiced at previous meetings.

Mayor Pro Tem Cheryl Kinsman and Councilman Kelly Boyd have been researching possible locations for a theater and Aliso Canyon was one of them.

Councilwoman Toni Iseman proposed putting it on top of a parking structure on the nearby county property.

“A community theater is needed, but I don’t want it on county property,” Kinsman said. “It needs to be on property owned by the city or by a city/private partnership so we can control the dates — that’s the problem our wonderful performing arts groups are having now.”

More than 40 speakers voiced opinions at the meeting.

All comments were recorded by a court stenographer.

BARBARA DIAMOND can be reached at (949) 494-4321 or [email protected].