After seeing the full-page ad in the Indy sponsored by Liberate Laguna, I felt motivated to grab my black armband and head down to Main Beach to join the revolution. That was until I read the letter by David Raber in last week’s Independent. That letter clarified what this movement is really all about.
This political statement, Liberate Laguna, is truly one of the finest examples of creative double speak I have seen in years. It reminds me of the old days when it was cool to be anti-establishment. Given that the Liberate Laguna group consists mainly of well-heeled real estate and commercial interests, how creative of them to use this spin to promote their unrestricted development agenda.
By what means do they plan to implement that agenda? The upending of the historical element of the general plan as defined under CEQA law. A law, by the way, that was passed by a majority vote in the state of California. Their appeal to fear and emotion is beneath any reasonable analysis of the issue.
They say they are concerned about property rights. Yes, their own. Never mind that the unique historical legacy of Laguna is what defines its general plan and cohesiveness as a community. We should just ignore the fact that the law requires this aspect to be addressed. So much easier to manipulate the passing out of permits to build more three-story concrete, residential warehouses and Miami-style resort hotels to feed the tourist herds.
In the opinion of the city attorney, historic structures are part of the physical environment under CEQA. Per section 15064.5 (4) of the California Code of regulations, it is the responsibility of the city to factor in this assessment when passing out permits for development.
“The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, not included in a local register of historic resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k ) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j)Or 5024.”
That preclusion refers to those resources not listed on a register, which by logical extension would mean the city can consider them as well if they fit the criterion. To assert that the city should not have input when deciding demolition, development and rebuilds, that historic preservation should be voluntary and at the whim of a property owner, defies any standard of appropriate land use policy.
The city ordinance that precipitated all this discussion certainly needs to be updated to make it easier and more economical for property owners, while at the same time ensuring that the intent of the law is implemented. Why not let the task force that is working on this get on with it?
Cindalee Hall, Laguna Beach
