I am mystified after reading about Scott Tenney’s plan to move two historic cottages to his 15 acre Bluebird Canyon property.
I know of this property and it was sold under the condition no other buildings or additions to the house could be added. The footprint of the home may be improved. That is why the price was so reasonable.
There are serious landslide issues. The property is certainly beautiful and would make a great organic farm but how could he succeed with the request to install two historic buildings? Why would the city help fund an inappropriate, prohibited action. If the cottages were moved and there was a landslide, will the taxpayers be funding rebuilding as well? Mr. Tenney, as the buyer, certainly he is aware of these conditions. Why is the City Council even entertaining the idea?
As for the idea of moving the cottages to the recently acquired 3.2 acres that the city purchased to be left as open space, wouldn’t that be the opposite of having open space? Putting three cottages on land designated as open space is a violation in spirit and intent of the purchase.
Are you kidding? What kind of logic is operating here? Mr. Tenney seems to be asking for the moon and the City Council is thinking it over!
Moving historic cottages to private land that is prohibited from having any additional buildings at taxpayer expense or moving the cottages to designated open space in the name of preserving the environment is amazing and wrong.
The irony that Mr. Tenney is employed by BP Oil and Gas seems to be lost on everyone.
Rachel Uchiozno, Laguna Beach