Mailbag - June 7, 2002

To City of Laguna Beach

City Council

Planning Commission

Design Review Board:

First of all I would like to thank you for the time and effort you are

devoting to the “mansionization” problem here in Laguna Beach. It is

without a doubt one of the key issues that will determine the future of

our city and our neighborhoods and I appreciate the opportunity to add to

the discussion.

Two years ago (October 2000) a proposed remodel in our neighborhood

came before the Design Review Board for approval. For our neighborhood,

this proposed home fit Norm Grossman’s recent explanation of

mansionization. Its appearance, size and its incompatibility with its

neighbors was a problem and resulted in substantial neighborhood

opposition. At least seven Design Review Board hearings were devoted to

this proposal. Ten or more neighbors attended each hearing, letters of

opposition were submitted to the file as was a petition signed by

neighbors opposed to the project.

We pointed out to the review board that the new home constituted a

156% increase in the size of the existing structure. The proposed second

story would not only block views but would tower over the neighbors to

the south and southwest. The home would overwhelm its corner lot (one of

the smallest lots in the neighborhood) and it would be out of proportion

with the existing single story houses that ranged from 1,102 square feet

to 1,761 square feet. The home would be approximately three times the

size of the surrounding properties.

After seven review board hearings the proposal was approved mainly due

to “hearing” fatigue and an apparent disregard of an existing zoning

code. This code currently deals with compatibility, building mass, views

and sensitivity to the environment.

In response to this and to the threatening Driftwood Estates, the Hobo

and Aliso Canyons Neighborhood Assn. was founded to stop this from ever

happening again. However, we need comprehensive parameters and consistent

enforcement if we are to be successful in dealing with this problem.

In the article in the May 31 Coastline Pilot the recommendations made

by the Planning Commission concerning mansionization seem reasonable and

workable though not very concrete at this point. The idea in recent years

to allow some houses to exceed the maximum height to allow better views,

air or light or as a trade-off for other modifications imposed by the

review board only sanctions the overbuilding trend.

The sad truth is we have to stop someplace. As to garages, I support

two-car garages for all single-family residences and that they be used

for parking cars, not for additional rooms. To answer Norm Grossman’s

comment in the article that “garages are ugly,” they don’t have to be and

they are far better than looking at parked cars all day.

One suggestion that I would have is to ask the applicant how they see

their proposal fitting into the neighborhood. When I asked the owner of

the house on Ocean Vista what she thought of the neighbors’ concerns that

the house was too big, she said that she didn’t care what the neighbors

thought.

We are privileged to live in such a beautiful place as Laguna Beach.

It is important to oppose mansionization and support neighborhoods that

retain the charm of Laguna. If we allow profit and greed over quality of

life, what do we have? No quality of life, and isn’t that what Laguna is

all about?

I encourage and support your efforts to deal with this important

issue.

THERESA A. SEHI

Laguna Beach

Design Review Board

Dear Board Members:

I am a longtime and proud member of St. Catherine of Siena Church. The

church not only provides spiritual sustenance for the Catholics of Laguna

Beach, it also organizes and carries out a variety of charitable

activities for the less fortunate in our community. As such, St.

Catherine is an integral part of what makes our community special. That

is why I have been dismayed that the church has been unable to obtain

approval for its proposed remodel.

As you know, the church is quite old and has not been subject to

upgrade or remodel for some time. Much has changed since the founding of

the church. From purely a safety perspective, much of what the church is

planning to do should be viewed as necessary.

For a variety of reasons, the church has a significant older

membership. And the church is very important to those older members. The

entrance to the church is navigated only by a series of steps that are

not only difficult, but also can be dangerous, for our elderly members.

Not all that long ago, I waited with one of our older members for the

paramedics to come to take her to South Coast Medical Center after she

fell on the steps and put a deep gash in her forehead that required

several stitches to close. Fortunately, she recovered, but I cringe

whenever I see her trying to manage those steps.

Likewise, we all know that knowledge about secure foundations is much

greater today than at the time the church was originally built. The

remodel plans include both foundation retrofitting and an elevator, which

will greatly improve the safety of the church and its accessibility to

our elderly members.

I understand that some of our neighbors are concerned about parking

around the church. I also understand that there is nothing in the law

that requires the church to provide any additional parking for the

proposed structure. However, it should be noted that the church has been

and will continue to be considerate of its neighbors. In fact, each

week’s church bulletin includes a request that parishioners “please

remember our good neighbors” by not blocking driveways and/or sidewalks.

It also should be noted that the proposed remodel will not increase

the size of the church, but rather add additional office and meeting

space. As that space will not be used at the same time as church

services, parking requirements during peak times will not increase.

Parking required during use of the new facilities will be less than that

required for or during existing services, so existing parking will be

more than sufficient.

As a community, we should be considerate of other’s property rights.

However, those who acquire property near a church or a school, must do so

with the knowledge that others in the community will use the nearby

public streets as a place to park while attending a school or church

function. Accommodation is a two-way street.

I read with amusement that some have objected to the proposed remodel

because they will no longer be able to “cut through” church property on

their way from here to there. This strikes me as coming under the

category of “no good deed goes unpunished.” Apparently, these people

believe that because they were not stopped from trespassing on church

property in the past, they have the right to continue to do so in

perpetuity. I hope the board sees the absurdity of this claim.

I have seen renderings of the proposed remodel and believe that the

scope and size of the project is in keeping with the original design of

the building and with the character of the neighborhood. As such, I

believe that in addition to adding to the safety of the building, the new

structure will be a visual enhancement to our community and provide the

church with needed space from which to continue to extend its ministry to

our community’s less fortunate.

For more than 70 years, St. Catherine has been a good neighbor and an

important part of the Laguna Beach community. It wants to continue in

those roles. Much time has passed since the church was originally built,

and much has changed. To continue to be responsive to its members and the

community at large, the church also must change. The proposed remodel is

St. Catherine’s attempt to provide a space that is in keeping with its

original architecture, yet also is updated to address the needs of

today’s members and the larger community.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

MARY LOCATELLI

Laguna Beach

I am thrilled that I happened to read this article this morning. I

have a major problem with the mansionization of Laguna. It has effected

me quite personally!

Two years ago I moved to Laguna from Balboa Island. I bought a

beautifully remodeled cottage on Canyon View with a view of Main Beach. I

was in heaven. I chose Laguna because of the quaint feeling of the homes

and the sense of community. I have always been impressed with how much

the residents care about their “special place” called Laguna.

Right after I moved in construction started across the street from my

home -- not on one lot, but two, for a 7,000-square-foot home. That

construction has lasted almost two years and started with the immense

grading and leveling of a hill lot.

The home now towers over my little cottage and is at least built up

from the street by 10 to 12 feet. They are almost complete now but there

is still a port-a-potty right out front.

Not only did all of us on Canyon View put up with huge inconveniences

during the building process, but to add insult to injury the new owner

called me the week he moved in and asked me to trim and replace some of

my trees -- two small olive and one very young sycamore. It is hard to

believe that a 7,000-square-foot home that is built up off the street by

10 to 12 feet, two stories with a huge deck on the second floor, would

even be hampered by my trees. My home is built down hill, at least 10

feet down from the street.

So I have decided to move out of Laguna. What completely surprised me

is why a quaint beautiful town like Laguna would allow these

monstrosities of wealth to be built here. What is the Design Review Board

doing? My other big question is why anyone who moves to Laguna would even

want to build these monstrosities? They must be attracted the quaintness

and charm, then they build the exact opposite.

Thank you for noticing and I hope you resolve this issue as I feel it

is a major problem.

DANA EGGERTS

Laguna Beach

A little late to fight mansions

In response to your question: “What can the city do to stop residents

turning their homes in mansions?” I would respectfully suggest that this

is a case of “shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.”

After the 1993 fire the city stated its intent to “put the

neighborhood back together” and those of us in the Mystic Park area

(Skyline, Caribbean and Tahiti) rushed out to replace our homes with

similar homes (2,000 square feet).

A number of owners opted to wait or sell their lots and in rushed the

speculators/builders with proposed homes of 5,000 and 6,000 square feet.

I protested in writing before the first one was approved and protested

subsequent approvals to the Design Review Board, all to no avail. I gave

up the fight as a lost cause when the review board and then the City

Council approved the adjacent home which, along with many others, were

more appropriate to Newport Coast or Coto de Casa.

It is now amusing to me to see the angst going on in some quarters of

city government. As long as the review board is made up of architects and

others who see size as irrelevant nothing will change. We will just be an

extension of Newport Coast.

How do you halt it? Please reread paragraph one.

PETER J. KIRBY

Laguna Beach

Superintendent’s proposal right on target

Residents of Laguna Beach are ecstatic with Supt. Theresa Daem’s

recommendation made to the Laguna Beach Unified District School Board on

Fri., May 31.

The recommendation, to transfer a current Top of the World attendance

area to El Morro, proves to be well thought out and thorough. Based on

the numbers and analysis presented, it is suited to be a long-term

solution to the disproportionate number of students currently enrolled at

the two elementary schools.

We thank Daem for keeping our neighborhoods intact and for helping to

preserve the character of our city. We appreciate that the school

district went beyond the necessary realm to incorporate the concerns of

many families. We hope that the school board members will be in full

support of this recommendation, and will continue to represent the

residents who are honored to call Laguna Beach their home.

TOM AND MICHELLE FALKOWSKI

Laguna Beach

City should think preservation, not profit

The Hobo and Aliso Canyons Neighborhood Assn. appreciates the article

in the May 24 Coastline Pilot covering the proposed Driftwood Estates

luxury home subdivision.

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a couple of points

in the article.

The neighborhood association’s stance, as well as that of the Sierra

Club, is that this property should be preserved as open space in

perpetuity. It has faced decades of illegal grading, denuding and

chemical defoliation and has earned the right to be restored to its

original state and be preserved.

An 18-home subdivision simply is not appropriate and the

recommendation by the city staff to reduce this to a seven-home

development is the first “hint” that this is simply too dense of a

project for such sensitive habitat.

Morris Skendarian’s comment, “The project is not economically viable

with just seven lots,” indicates that perhaps he hasn’t received the

“hint.”

As the song goes, “This is nature’s way of telling you something’s

wrong.” This land simply will not and cannot support a subdivision -- of

any size. It’s a matter of preservation versus profit, Mr. Skendarian.

In the March 5 primary election, Laguna Beach voters delivered a very

clear message regarding their desire for preservation. In a phenomenal

vote for Proposition 40, over two-thirds of the Laguna Beach voters

displayed a stunning level of support for clean air, clean water, parks

and preservation. The precinct by precinct returns showed broad support

for Proposition 40.

Not only did Proposition 40 send an environmental message, it also has

provided us with much needed funds to purchase land and preserve it. We

understand a property owner has the right to a profit, but it doesn’t

require development to turn that profit -- let us prove it by giving us

the opportunity to buy it. A willing seller -- that’s all we ask for.

PENNY ELIA

Hobo & Aliso Canyons Neighborhood Assn.; president, Save Hobo & Aliso

Ridge Task Force; Sierra Club task force leader

Low-income housing good way to go

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that Laguna Beach is not

just one of the most unusual communities in Orange County, it is also one

of the most affluent as well. Most of us who live here know how fortunate

we are.

The unintended consequences, though, are that the cost of housing and

the cost of maintaining housing have become more and more expensive. And,

certainly, those most affected are the individuals and families of more

moderate means.

Over the last few years, the Laguna Beach Housing and Human Affairs

Committee has been working on the issue of affordable housing and housing

rehab in the context of an affluent city such as Laguna. Generally

speaking, most people approve of local low-income housing because it adds

to the diversity of the population base. Laguna Beach, with its special

characteristics and people, is very much in the forefront of this

movement. In addition, such housing provides a local base for many

moderate-wage employees, people who would ordinarily drive from out of

the area to work in our stores and shops.

Indeed, on the public side, the city has moved ahead in its desire to

improve its affordable housing stock. Recently, it purchased a facility

at 450 Glenneyre St. and is in the process of converting it into

approximately 30 low-income units.

Still, there is more opportunity. One area that has not been explored

fully is the existing rental housing inventory and whether any existing

units can be converted to affordable units.

What many people do not know is that there are programs offered by the

county and other various agencies that are intended to make lower-income

housing more economically interesting to those who have units to rent.

From a practical point of view, most property owners have been

generally cautious with regards to low-income housing. Most impressions

are usually less than positive. The reality, though, is that many of

those impressions are more perceived than real. Moreover, those who have

actually been involved in the programs are quite supportive.

The specific programs offered by the county, for example, are intended

to create tangible and economic benefits to renting low-income units,

benefits that can make the program attractive to property owners. Such

things include rent guarantees, flexibility and quick tenant turnaround

due to a waiting list of applicants. With regards to rental rates,

usually the most important factor to property owners, the rates for

studios and one-bedroom units can be competitive with the market (rental

rates for multiple bedroom units, though, are a bit less comparable).

Another program offered involves shared housing (i.e. renting a room).

Though perhaps not for everyone, this program offers attractive

reimbursement rates and is geared to moderate-income residents who wish

to augment their income by offering a room rental to a lower-income

candidate.

On Tuesday evening, the Laguna Beach Housing and Human Affairs

Committee will be sponsoring an educational workshop to discuss these

issues further. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers at

6 p.m. Speakers will include people from the Orange County Housing

Authority, the Fair Housing Council, Rebuilding Together, as well as

others.

In addition to affordable housing, other topics will include housing

rehab and ways to lower housing costs, issues that might be of interest

to Laguna residents on fixed incomes or those interested in knowing more

about existing housing assistance programs.

All are invited and welcomed to come.

KENT RUSSELL

Chairman, Laguna Beach Housing and Human Affairs Committee

Affordable housing would be blessing

Yes, Laguna Beach needs more affordable housing.

Some of us here in Aliso Viejo or Dana Point left our hearts in Laguna

to save a couple hundred to be able to afford to live.

I’ll be back in Laguna somehow soon, but it would be sweet if there

was more affordable housing. We don’t need Laguna to blend in with

Newport -- it has it’s own style -- Laguna’s soul shall remain.

NICOLE BRAGASSA

Aliso Viejo

Public transit good for business

Re: “Enough with the guff in public transit” (Coastline Pilot, May

31).

Go to any shopping mall and look at the size of the parking in

relation to the size of the shopping mall. What if this space were put to

use selling merchandise instead of parking cars?

Go to any industrial park and compare the building to the parking

lots. What if this space were put to productive use?

The word subsidy for paying for mass transportation is the wrong word.

When employers and stores operate in Boston, New York and other cities

with mass transportation, they only pay for productive space. Only part

of the savings goes toward mass transportation. Lets tell the story like

it is with no “guff.”

HERB RABE

Laguna Beach

North Laguna budget concerns

To Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman:

The North Laguna Community Assn. and its board are concerned that the

current budgeting process is not funding the projects and services most

critical to our entire community.

Our concern is based on the council’s apparent support for projects we

view as worthwhile, but as not having the highest priority in serving the

welfare of Laguna Beach as a whole. We are also concerned that no

discussion has occurred to determine how to deal with the likely loss of

$1.6 million of expected revenue for this coming year.

Given the importance of the budgeting process, we ask that there be

more community involvement and discussion, not only in selecting which

projects are funded, but equally important, which projects or services

will be underfunded or cut to balance the budget.

To that end, our community association recommends that budget items be

categorized three ways:

* Infrastructure: Support and services that are provided by the city

and critical to our community’s health and safety, i.e., fire,

paramedics, police, water, sewers, building, zoning, streets, etc.

* Revenue: Those projects that offer the opportunity to generate

additional revenue or at least be self-supporting, i.e. parking

structures, joint commercial development, Festival of Arts, etc.

* Community Serving: Projects that would provide community services

but are not infrastructure or revenue producing in nature and require

city funds to accomplish, i.e. community center, community clinic, etc.

We feel that city funds should be expended first to infrastructure,

then to revenue-producing projects, and if excess funding is available,

to community serving. We do not feel there should ever be trade-offs

between infrastructure and community serving or revenue-producing

projects. It is apparent that our city’s infrastructure is in a very

delicate state and needs major focus to prevent future catastrophes.

As examples, funds should not be shifted from repairing substandard

working conditions for city employees at the corporate yard or main beach

lifeguard headquarters to fund less critical community-serving projects.

Cutting city staff in the building and zoning departments to provide

funds for non-infrastructure projects would add to the work load of an

already overburdened staff and reduce further service levels to the

community.

Our sewers are in desperate need of repair. Even with the 10% increase

in fees, we are only beginning to address the existing problems.

Additional funding to this critical part of our community’s

infrastructure is needed to protect us from the potential of millions of

gallons of raw sewage that travel down Coast Highway erupting from our

streets. Any delay of upgrades to fire and police infrastructure while

facing the driest year in history would cause us great concern.

In summary, we recommend the categorizations in this letter so all the

citizens of our community can begin to understand how and where our funds

will be spent. If it is necessary to make cuts to fund something that is

currently not in the proposed budget or because of revenue shortfalls,

then we will know what the council recommends we should give up to

balance the budget.

We think this city budget cycle represents a great opportunity for all

of us in Laguna to really understand how our taxes will be used in our

community.

GARY BEVERAGE

President, North Laguna Community Assn.

Don’t forget the importance of trees

Obvious motivations aside, Dave Connell’s Sounding off (“Can’t compare

trees in Carmel vs. Laguna,” Coastline Pilot, May 24) calling his critic

“wrong on all counts” cites several part truths, offers false information

and misses the real view except that which comes from his own one-way

perspective.

True: This is a semiarid and south-exposed terrain with little or

periodic rain. For the most part only shrubs (native scrub) are on our

west-facing slopes. Oaks, sycamores and a variety of undergrowth as well

as plants such as dudlea are also native to cliff faces and canyons. At

least that is how it was historically before the eucalyptus was imported

and took hold, not to mention the pepper, coral, ficus, et al.

In fact, most plants in our gardens and nurseries are not native. It

remains to be seen if our weather conditions remain as they were, given

geological information and environmental factors that continue to alter

our climate toward another direction.

While nature endowed this area with open, spacious views from the

hills to the sea and upward toward the hills from the sea, the view

shared by our ancestors and early residents who arrived in this area now

looks upward and outward from and at the intensely overbuilt homes and

commercial buildings that are reaching critical mass.

This is quite a different view from that of early travelers marveling

at the gentle slopes and deep canyons and appreciating the eucalyptus

trees enough to record them for posterity in landscape and seascape

paintings.

Artists came to Laguna over the past century and established it as the

Eucalyptus School with paintings looking through and at these and other

magnificent trees. They are becoming a symbol of Laguna’s coastal

environment and its reputation as well as the Riviera of the West.

Because of its light, also derived in part from the shadows and scale

of its trees, the contours of those eucalyptus trees and unfettered hills

are testimonials within highly prized collections of “what Laguna Beach

was.”

This is our trademark and used as extensively today as yesteryear in

brochures, photos and collectible memorabilia, in museum and gallery

exhibitions and as part of the Plein Air competition’s marketing

strategy.

There are few or no remaining old-growth stands or really large trees.

We have cut down all the 100-year-old oaks along the canyon road and

ripped up most others that did not burn or stood in the way of

development. But it is not the trees that present themselves as permanent

obstructions to the view shed, but the way in which we have imposed

development into our views. We have placed our own needs and values

before ourselves and other life in the natural habitats. But that is

rarely spoken in the same vehement tones as Connell’s notion of view

shed.

Telephone poles, wires, roof lines, buildings and the cheek-to-jowl

massing of homes with glaring view glass are predominant no matter what

the view. This has dwarfed most of what was beautiful about Laguna’s

contour lines and landscape in favor of permanent light pollution and not

so pleasing structures. These are the real obstacles to the beauty and

life of the coast and hills that were painted and appreciated by artists

and earlier residents.

The recent Laguna Art Museum’s Lincoln Plein Air Invitational had

Marion Wachtel’s 1915 painting of a giant eucalyptus with the words

“legendary beauty” on its cover page and is the description of Laguna’s

noted fame through that view. We buy, sell and make money off that view

through those trees, but the likes of Connell remind us that they are

unimportant.

As with most uniformed bullies who whip the flames of anger against

the most innocent of targets, Connell’s tirade passes over the important

truths and offers only “if you dislike views and are overly fond of

trees, then find somewhere else.”

(In other words, move.) His final insult adds injury to our already

assaulted senses, citing trees as the fuel for potential injury and fire.

Certainly his tirade has found a place in his and other fuzzy minds of

those who will go so far as to pay others to cull trees from their sight

while applauding intense development that extracts the ultimate price.

Environmental, emotional and physical health depend on a balance, on

variety and open space and watershed in which to contemplate and create.

Trees add shade, moisture, shelter and scale to both the built and

natural environments. They are prunable, shapeable and add immeasurably

to the physical and emotional atmosphere as well as frame the view in

which Laguna’s reputation stands.

Unfortunately Laguna is looking more like Connell’s view than

Wachtel’s.

LEAH VASQUEZ

Laguna Beach

Trees are lovely, but need to be controlled

In response to Mary Nelson’s letter in the May 17 edition of the

Coastline Pilot, “Laguna trees should be cherished,” -- she sound like

she would rather live in Carmel.

When was the last time she talked to anyone living in Carmel? There

are many people who have had their homes and other property damaged by

branches falling from trees that they are not allowed to trim.

They are scared about fires -- like we are. Was she here for the fires

of ’93 where are all those lovely trees burned to cinders along with

homes?

Those lovely trees have damaged our sewer systems, granted they were

old, but please let’s look at all the reasons.

I love trees -- I have six on my property but I keep them at bay. I

wish other people were as considerate. There are several of us who are

held in fiscal and emotion hostage because of the meanness of a neighbor.

They are using lovely trees as weapons and we can no longer look at the

magnificent ocean view that I and they once had.

Nelson must live where a view is not of importance. Please think about

those who value our town and want to be sure we don’t lose it to fires,

lose our views or lose our hillsides to poor planting techniques. Like

grass on the other side of the fence, that same can be said about trees.

GANKA BROWN

Laguna Beach

Long-reaching effects of a riot

Following up on the aside concerning how Neil Purcell “busted Timothy

Leary for possession of marijuana,” it is interested to remember that

“narc.” Neil found the joint because he could gain access to Leary’s car,

which was parked illegally on Woodland Drive where he was visiting his

followers, the Brotherhood of Eternal Love.

Woodland Drive in 1968 was where they rented their homes. It is a

unusual area because it is in the center of the original tract from which

the trailer park split off. Joe Thurston planned the “park” with six-foot

lanes and walks for access to the homes with designated parking lots

along Woodland and Milligan drives for each building site within the

area. Thus it is like a “park” because there are no streets and driveways

to most of the homes.

The hippies turned the area into a perpetual party place as they

didn’t leave to go to jobs. Trash cans were filled with Heinekin beer

bottles. Nothing but the best! Their children’s birthday parties must

have supported the toy stores of Laguna, and there were occasional

communal feasts to which other area residents were invited.

In 1968, three city council candidates -- Goldberg, Ostrander and Lorr

-- were elected with a platform to get rid of the hippies in Laguna. They

promised that they would enact a housing inspection to condemn the

hippies” homes and drive the drug culture out of town. The hippies’ saw

it as an attempt to allow the police access to their homes so that their

stashes could be found.

In any case, all hell broke loose among civil libertarians, including

myself, and the papers had a ball with such news and editorial material

when this council majority proceeded to create and implement laws that

which would accomplish the goal.

As a longtime resident in the area, I responded with outrage and wrote

a petition that essentially dealt with the fact that the method of their

action was unconstitutional. This was circulated throughout Laguna and

returned to me. The pages of the 500 signatures were taped together in a

scroll that was unrolled from the back of council chambers to the lectern

where I presented it during oral communications. The council voted to

stay the inspection for further study and legal guidance.

On the Fourth of July, the hippies and their friends from all over had

a great celebration on Woodland Drive. Finding myself in the center of

hundreds of young people shouting in jubilation, I decided this is not

where I wanted to stay and went home. Minutes later Laguna police, as

well as those from 26 other departments, showed up in full riot gear.

People fled into the hills, up the trails and all over, including the

home of the Brotherhood.

The results of this were that eventually there was a housing

inspection; the neighborhood was designated a “Housing Deficiency Area;”

the police busted enough people there that drug dealing was no longer

profitable, partly because of the expensive attorneys; the mayor of what

the Brotherhood called “Dodge City” became a born-again minister; the

sheriff disappeared; Purcell was promoted eventually to Chief.

With no sewers, and other problems, something had to be done.

Coincidentally, at the same time, the federal Department of Housing and

Urban Development came into existence essentially to provide low-income

housing but also to assist in other ways as well. One of these, public

works improvements, included senior housing, which was the first priority

in Laguna. When that failed, finally efforts were directed to Thurston

Park and eventually sewers, new water lines and a specific plan were

accomplished. Redevelopment was possible because the city purchased the

park as a tribute to Jim Dilley’s vision of a greenbelt.

As for me, 20 years later, my tiny house was remodeled to the studio

home of my dreams. Also, Jim Dilley’s greenbelt became a parking lot for

some of the neighborhood and also a small children’s playground.

So far, five new homes have been built and others are in the planning

stages.

All this happened because three councilmen vowed to drive the hippies’

out of Laguna, and there was a riot.

ANDY WING

Laguna Beach