Time everyone gets piece of El Morro...

Time everyone gets piece of El Morro

There has been a recent barrage of letters to the editor and press

coverage of the plight of the residents of El Morro Trailer Park who

are currently facing eviction. These letters and news reports tend to

ignore the basic facts of the situation.

Fact 1: The land occupied by El Morro trailer park has belonged to

the people of California since 1979 when the state acquired most of

the coast between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach to create Crystal

Cove State Park.

Fact 2: The people of California (except the trailer park

residents) have been denied access to this section of Crystal Cove

State Park for 25 years as the residents paid substantially

below-market rent and enjoyed a defacto private beach.

Fact 3: The residents were offered the choice of a relocation

package or a “final” 20-year lease in 1979. They chose the lease,

therefore they are not now eligible for relocation costs, nor can

they legitimately claim they were not given adequate notice. They

managed to get another five-year lease extension in 1999 that has now

expired.

Fact 4: The California Department of Parks and Recreation has

developed and secured all necessary permits and funding for a

wonderful site restoration plan that includes:

* A lifeguard tower on the beach, with no other structures

remaining on what will be a beautiful, unspoiled beach (after removal

of the 75 trailers and associated substantial concrete and wood

protective structures that currently blight this section of coast).

* El Moro Creek restored with invasive plants removed

* The canyon bottom reserved for day-use parking and picnicking

* Sixty camping spots on the upper terrace

* Archeological site protection of a significant historic site

* Significant removal of pavement

* Native plant restoration throughout the project

* Elimination of nuisance water flows

* Water quality treatment system

* Enhanced coastal access including ADA access to beach, not

presently available

* Coastal/canyon trail linkage

* Educational and Interpretive facilities with natural and

cultural themes

* Two hundred day-use parking spaces that serve both canyon and

beach areas.

This plan is supported by the city councils of Newport Beach and

Laguna Beach, as well as by a long list of local and regional

environment organizations.

For those who still might think that residential housing in this

area is OK, consider that this is not why we acquire land for state

parks and other open space and it is not why the Irvine Co. sold the

state the land.

Imagine for a moment that we had the reverse situation, that the

proposed state improvements and restoration had been in place for 20

years and there was a proposal to rip that out and cram a dense

300-unit trailer park on the land and beach and restrict public

access to the park, just so that the state would have a minor source

of income. We believe the public would be outraged at the idea of

paving paradise to “solve” the budget crises. What next -- rental

trailers in Laguna Canyon after we worked so hard to save it? Or

perhaps filling Yosemite Valley with rental trailers?

No, El Morro residents -- you have had more than a fair deal for

decades at the expense of the rest of us. Now it’s our turn.

RICK WILSON

Chairman, Laguna Beach Chapter, Surfrider Foundation

ELISABETH BROWN

President, Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.

Montage should not get added parking

I oppose the permanent use of the Unocal property and the linear

parcel as a parking lot for the Montage resort for the following

reasons:

When the building permit was issued for the hotel there was

extensive discussion and assurances given by all parties that all

hotel parking would be on-site and would not impact in anyway,

businesses and homes on the opposite side of the Coast Hwy.

Subsequently, the Montage bought the hotel from Marriott, the

original developer. Montage now alleges that they have higher

staffing level requirements and need additional employee parking. If

they need additional parking, it should not detrimentally impact the

adjoining community. It’s not our problem ,it’s theirs.

The hotel created serious parking impacts to the residents and

businesses opposite the hotel when it opened and a temporary-use

permit was issued to Montage to park cars at the Unocal site and the

linear parcel in order for Montage to develop a remedy to their

parking problem. It was never meant to be the remedy or a permanent

solution. In addition to the Unocal site and the linear parcel

parking areas being used on a temporary basis, the alleged Montage

parking needs have forced them to impact numerous other sites in the

community, none of which was approved and envisioned in the original

building approval. They include a total of 234 spaces at Albertson’s,

South Coast hospital parking and Aliso Beach public parking, all of

which hurt the public use. They also shuttle their employees from

these sites. Even with the proposed Unocal parking lot will not deal

with the issue. What about the 234 off-site spaces being used now?

Obviously, the remedy with the least effect on the community would

be to locate all the additional Montage parking needs on their Aliso

Creek Inn and Golf Course property. This site is not visible from

Coast Highway and would be a mere few hundred yards from the hotel.

They have more than sufficient land there and the effect on the

neighborhood would be minimal and much more acceptable to the

residents. The reason given by the Montage lobby group at the

Planning Commission hearing as to why this option was not pursued was

the certain code restrictions provided that off-site parking was

limited to hotel owned property no farther than 300 feet from the

hotel property. It seems to me that a variance to this rule would be

the preferred path rather than putting what amounts to a used car lot

on Coast Highway for all to see -- not to mention the traffic issues.

This results in minimal problems and a permanent fix to handle all

the parking requirements on one site.

Montage’s Aliso Creek Inn and Golf course property offers the best

and only choice -- te obvious choice. This variance should be pursued

to the 300-foot rule immediately and would answer all the parking

problems with one approval.

If the Laguna Beach residents are misfortunate enough through the

lack of their City Council’s representation and are overridden by the

moneyed special interests of the Montage Hotel, development of the

Unocal site and the long strip into a permanent parking lot should

not be allowed for the following reasons:

Aside from setting up a permanent eyesore by installing what would

appear as a used car lot for all to see, there are serious traffic

problems that already exist at the entrance to Ruby’s Restaurant and

the Laguna Terrace Park. Also the traffic at the signaled light

directly across the street from the Montage entrance would be

exacerbated by the addition of the about 105 cars in the new Montage

employee parking lot.

Planning Commissioner Norm Grossman, at a hearing Dec. 15, said he

gives no credence to any traffic studies as they represent only the

preconceived views of the group who paid for the study. For this

reason any traffic studies provided by Montage or their consultants

should be ignored. It was also hard to understand Grossman’s approval

vote at the Planning Commission hearing when he didn’t buy the

private traffic study provided by Montage’s traffic consultants.

There are about 157 units in the Laguna Terrace Park, which

represent about 300 cars with an additional estimated 300 cars per

day as customers for Ruby’s. If you add the proposed 150 cars per day of Montage employees that comes to 750 cars per day that will be

using the fire lane easement for both entering and exiting to and

from Coast Highway.

The proposed addition of a right-turn lane on the existing fire

lane easement from Coast Highway does not give enough room for

employees to make that right turn into the Unocal lot. It’s a fire

lane and should not be congested any further. What does the city fire

chief have to say about further congesting the fire lane from a

public safety viewpoint? If this lane is blocked by traffic when

rescue vehicles are responding to an emergency, the results could be

catastrophic.

Why are we immediately discussing variance to access the proposed

parking lot from an already congested fire lane? What about the

obvious first plan? By code, they are to enter and exit directly from

Coast Highway. Montage’s complaint that this option would cause

stacking up on the northbound traffic on is valid. All they would

have to do is create a right turn lane on the northbound Coast

Highway into the sidewalk easement where the sidewalk now exists.

There is already a driveway and approach there that worked fine for

the Unocal station for 30 years. This would alleviate all further

problems on an already overcrowded fire lane easement and would also

not impact the overcrowded signaled intersection at the entrance to

the shopping center. They would have their own private entrance and

exit. It is obvious the planning of this off-street entrance and exit

does not touch the Caltrans state right of way.

If Montage ever gets ownership of the lineal parcel, they plan to

develop that site as an extension of the proposed Unocal parking.

Their plan includes a small four-foot retaining wall against the

existing bare 30-foot high cliff. This cliff is highly visible to the

public and it is an eyesore. It has continuously been eroding and any

permanent plan to develop the long strip site must include a

permanent engineered and aesthetically pleasing 30-foot high

retraining wall similar what was done to the cliff in front of the

shopping center.

Not much has been said about the signaled intersection at the

entrance into the Montage. It works fine for those entering the

Montage hotel but a serious problem has been created on the shopping

center entrance. There are two marked white lines north and south of

the entrance to the west facing signaled intersection. As all cars

must either turn right or turn left from these lines to enter the

signaled intersection on Coast Highway a problem exists in that these

represent an additional intersection on private property. They are

overcrowded and cars continually block the intersection and prevent

traffic to flow through the second intersection. until the signal

permits left hand turns from the shopping center. I have seen road

rage and fights break out over this situation. It needs to be

addressed in any decision. The exiting from the proposed linear

parcel parking lot only adds to an already unacceptable situation.

Remember the parking was all addressed at the time the building

permit was issued. When asked why we are having all these problems

now and who’s at fault, the commissioner’s state that Montage’s

parking needs have changed since the building plan was approved.

Well, the needs of the residents have not changed. To let Montage get

away with a backdoor fix and to have this council ignore the original

public agreement not to have hotel parking impact the opposite side

of the highway would be condoning Montage to perpetrate another

outrage against Laguna residents.

I hope all Laguna residents will remember each of the council

members’ votes on this issue at the next election. Please do the

right thing for the majority of residents for once.

SEAN SCHLUETER

Laguna Beach

* EDITOR’S NOTE: This letter also was sent to the City Council.