Plant Man Column

“A hedge signifies vision, persistence, and patience – qualities we crave in today’s world.” –Rita Buchanan

When we last visited, I contemplated a brief history of hedges, from the practical need for the earliest farmers to protect livestock and crops, shelter for private property spaces from the uncertainties of the outside world, and negatively, as a precipitant and accelerant of an ongoing feud between neighbors. No matter the reason for hedging, the right shrub selection will ensure the effect you’re seeking. 

If prompted, I frequently ask what are you looking for in a hedge? While the answers vary, creating personal privacy, blocking an unwanted view into a neighbor’s bedroom, and framing special garden features are often discussed. And, of course, the shrub should be fast growing when privacy is desired! 

While there are literally hundreds of choices for hedges, the following three shrubs have proven to be successful in Laguna.

Click on photo for a larger image

Boxwood, Buxus “Green Gem”

Boxwood is the iconic shrub that has been a favored hedge or garden feature over four millennia – from Egyptian to Italian and eventually Southern California gardens. It is my choice for a hedge around 3 feet in height. Easy to grow, although a bit slow in attaining its height, boxwoods may live for over a century. They don’t have to be clipped formally, as unsheared boxwood lends a softer hedging look in many gardens. 

Click on photo for a larger image

Privet, Ligustrum japonicum “Texanum”

The ubiquitous Privet is perhaps more functional than lovely, but as a 4 to 8-foot (or taller) hedge, their reliability and toughness is unmatched. Introduced from Asia, the plant’s growth habit is naturally dense, making it an ideal hedge for privacy. The growth is steady, but not fast. 

Grown informally, Privet blooms profusely with showy white flowers, however, many find the fragrance to be less than pleasant. If clipped formally as a hedge, it will bloom less heavily. The berries that follow are a food staple for many birds. 

Privet grows tall enough to be an effective windscreen near the beach, and can also be grown as a small patio or street tree. If one is so inclined, the plant is frequently the subject of whimsical garden topiary. 

Click on photo for a larger image

Kohuhu, Pittosporum tenuifolium “Silver Sheen”

This transplant from New Zealand has become a favorite in Laguna over the past two decades. The pittosporum cultivar grows quickly to 12-15 feet tall, and potentially taller. Younger plants tend to be denser; occasional pruning of the terminal (upper) growth will keep older plants fuller. 

Gardeners have learned that this cultivar requires good drainage and less hot sunlight than the species to avoid dieback. Nevertheless, with proper cultural care, these shrubs provide excellent hedging and screening in our coastal gardens.

To plant a hedge requires optimism and patience, as plants are not generally installed at mature size; I’m grateful that is not a Design Review Board requirement for landscaping! 

Take time to prune your hedges properly, by making the top narrower than the lower branches to ensure sunlight and air is available for lower foliage. And, by the way, please don’t grow a hedge to block your neighbor’s view. See you next time. 

Steve Kawaratani has been a local guy for 69 years. He can be reached at (949) 494.5141 or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. 

Steve Kawaratani

Laguna Beach

Dark money running Laguna now?

The City Council accepted $20 thousand from the Chamber of Commerce to help fund a parking structure study. The city kicked in $15 thousand. The funds are comingled. I asked the city to provide me with a list of donors from the Chamber for the $20 thousand. The Chamber stated that it was seven donors, donating $1,000 - $5,000, and that they weren’t current Chamber members. The city said they didn’t know who gave the money. The Chamber refused to give me their names. Why? What are you hiding?

The Chamber is a 501(c)(6) organization and as such is not obligated to reveal donors. The Chamber is in favor of building more parking structures at resident expense and has a record of saying so at Council meetings. Existing merchants have already fulfilled their parking requirements. So, who’s donating to the Chamber of Commerce? Wait – developers also are on record wanting a free structure. If I was a developer and wanted to hide funding a parking study to further my interests, I would channel it through the Chamber – now it’s dark money and I’m hidden. With this money from the Chamber and city staff drooling over a parking structure, in my opinion it is a foregone conclusion that this $35 thousand study will be in favor of a taxpayer-funded structure. It’s still unclear if our Shopper’s Permits will be valid in this lot. You pay, you don’t get to play.

According to Opensecrets.org, “Politically active nonprofits – principally 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s – have become a major force in federal elections over the last three cycles. The term ‘dark money’ is often applied to this category of political spender because these groups do not have to disclose the sources of their funding.” Well folks, it’s here in Laguna now too. If you want to fly under the radar, just donate to a 501(c) and you are anonymous. 

In addition to the Chamber we have a number of these in town that are, in my opinion, trying to influence policy. In my opinion the radio station’s General Manager, Tyler McCusker, comes to mind with his continual message that Laguna is run down and needs changing (the station is a donor to the Chamber by the way). His message is we need new development, we need to change what we have now, get rid of the old folks in the way, and embrace large developments. Where is their donor list? There were developers on his Board of Advisors (their names have since been taken off the list). I wonder why? In my opinion I’ll bet they have donated to the station.

And speaking of which, this same radio station asked for a Community Assistance Grant of $40 thousand. This is on top of the $13 thousand generator we bought them (and $8.9 thousand to repair it), $14.5 thousand antenna, $20 thousand in building improvement grants, and $62 thousand in previous Community Assistance Grants. Should residents be funding a 501(c)(3) that can hide its donors especially when city revenue is questionable right now? Note: the station’s list is not published anywhere that can be seen. So whatever form they use, their donor list is hidden.

Other organizations in Laguna are also nonprofits. According to taxexemptworld.com, Laguna has 518 tax-exempt groups. We also have Political Action Groups, like the Police and Fire PACs and Liberate Laguna, that have to report donations greater than $100. But suppose they then turned around and bundled those donations into one large donation to a candidate? That bundled money is now anonymous. Dark money.

Whether it is to elect a candidate, or in the case of the Chamber of Commerce, advance your agenda in town with hidden donors’ money, residents need to be mindful that sadly in Laguna today, money talks and residents walk. 

Michèle Monda

Laguna Beach

The History of Laguna’s Historic Preservation Ordinance

July 14, 2020 is the hearing date for the new Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO). On balance, it is a sensible law. The history of how we got to this point is worth sharing.

The inventory and Historic Resources Element of the General Plan emerged in 1981. Minutes of the August 4, 1981 City Council meeting record the event: “…there were 13 members of the committee and they had prepared a proposed historic element for the General Plan.” The matter was referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing, which was held on September 9, 1981. 

On October 6, 1981, the matter returned to the City Council. The public hearing and council comments suggest that owners could “…seek low-cost loans to help them keep their homes up and prevent problems of deterioration.” A council member stated that the ordinance would “ease the way for owners to obtain help in maintaining their property.” The Historic Resources Element was adopted by the Council. 

On December 21, 1982, The Laguna Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 82.111 recognizing the Historic Resources Inventory. The justification provided for adoption of the resolution was the City’s “pending application to the County for $148,000 in Housing and Community Development Block Grant funds for an historic preservation/housing rehabilitation program. For “…the funding proposal to be acceptable to the County, there must be an officially recognized roster of historically and architecturally significant buildings.” It is not clear whether any low-interest loan was ever made available to any owner of an inventory house from these funds. The Council did however clearly state that: “Inclusion on the inventory will not, in itself, impose any special obligations or requirements upon the property owner…” 745 properties were identified to be listed on the inventory, and were given designations as “E”, “K” or “C” depending on the condition of the structure (“E” being best). The inventory was intended only as a gateway to listing the home on the historic register. Listing on the register was voluntary and required an application by the owner. Once approved, the owner could apply for benefits, including property tax reduction through the Mills Act, and the ability to keep existing non-conformities. As a condition, the property was to be maintained according to preservation standards.

Seven years later, in a dramatic overreach in light of the record, a local group proposed a draft Historic Preservation Ordinance to the City Council seeking a sweeping edict that: “All structures listed on the Historic Inventory shall be considered to be historically significant and shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter.” Public hearing for the proposed new ordinance was scheduled for May 2, 1989 with the declaration that: “Your property is listed on the City’s Historic Inventory and is therefore eligible for preservation incentives and is subject to the provisions of the ordinance.” In other words, the voluntary program would no longer be voluntary. This effort met with open rebellion, with 200 people appearing at the May 2, 1989 Council meeting to object and protest. Through that protest, the inventory owners were reassured by the Council that the historic preservation program was entirely voluntary, and that these homes would not be so restricted without the voluntary and knowing consent of the owner. Newspaper headlines trumpeted: “Council Gives Historic Homeowners a Win,” with Mayor Gentry referring the matter to the Planning Commission “…with the instructions that any private property placed on the list is done at the pleasure of the property owner, and not the city.” Gentry also said “…it was never the City’s intention to force the residents to join the historic house list against their wishes. Why force someone to join a historic house list if they don’t want to? It was never out intent that this would be anything but voluntary.” 

The declaration by Mayor Gentry should have ended the issue. But it came roaring back in the early 2000s, when the City again started playing hardball with the owners of inventory houses. Applications for even the most minor remodels were met with incandescent resistance. The City began treating changes to inventory homes as modifications of “historic resources,” applying an entirely new level of scrutiny and restriction. As the restrictions gained a foothold with the planning staff, even homes that were not listed on the inventory but were merely “old” received a date with the heritage committee. Even after applicants went through the entire pre-DRB zoning process, with no concerns raised, their applications could be hijacked from ordinary DRB consideration if a member of the public or a DRB member suggested the house might be “historic,” with no proof other than a bare allegation. The applicant was forced to retain an historian and consultants who would assess the house at a cost to them of thousands of dollars, and those consultants would often decree the house to be an “historic resource.” This all took place without the owner being accorded a public hearing on the issue of historicity. This put even the most modest remodel effort for an older home out of reach. We had arrived at the point of, in my opinion, severe administrative abuse.

None of this activity even remotely complied with the law. Under CEQA, an historian cannot deem a private structure to be an “historical resource.” That is a government function, because this type of property restriction cannot be imposed without due process. Moreover, with regard to the inventory, despite the assurances of the original drafters in 1982 and the Mayor in 1989, there was no way off and no way out. Somehow the inventory, or even age alone, was deemed by the City to create a presumption that the property was historic. This was contrary to law. First, age alone creates no presumption. Second, a person urging a finding that a property is historic bears the burden of proving that premise. There is no burden on the homeowner to prove the property is not historic, unless a legal presumption applies. Third, under CEQA, a presumption of historicity attaches to properties listed on a valid local register. No presumption attaches to an inventory that has not been maintained in accordance with the law. Laguna’s inventory had not been maintained as required by California law, and therefor created no presumption at all. Nonetheless, the restrictions were imposed by the City until homeowners fought back.

The new Historic Preservation Ordinance, in my opinion, solves these problems and rights these wrongs. It will make clear that the 1981 inventory, which has been abused, and has caused confusion and financial hardship, does not and shall not be interpreted to create any inference of historicity. The burden of proving that a property is an historic resource is on the shoulders of the person advocating that position.

It is critical that the consent of the owner of the property be obtained as a condition of historic resource designation. This was promised in the beginning of development of the historic program, was reiterated in 1989 by Mayor Gentry, and is consistent with the law. 

It has been a difficult road bringing this issue to this point. It required countless hours in public meetings, in public communications, in discussion with staff. It required bringing this to the attention of the public. We have arrived at a point where this problem can be corrected in a way that respects and encourages those who wish to participate in historic preservation, as well as those who do not. All Laguna Beach residents should support the new Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Larry Nokes

Laguna Beach

School Days

To learn or not to learn that is the question. Well, in one sense that’s true, but in the final analysis it’s not. The issue boils down to how we educate and keep safe our kids who after all are the future of the country – who must be educated and trained to manage the increasingly complex technology and social issues in this mercurially dynamic world. We may think of ourselves as the greatest and most innovative – speak to Trump and his constituents – but China, India, Germany, and South Korea might contest that view.

When you consider what is in my opinion the failure of leadership in this country in the handling and management of the pandemic here and the almost disregard of overwhelming coronavirus infections among the population nationally – the lack of testing resources, ventilators, masks, the minimization of the seriousness of the epidemic, the focus on rebooting the economy instead of saving lives, and the overall politicizing of the whole pandemic disaster – you have to question what happened to that greatness. My intention here is not to politicize, but when you review the past 3.5 years, so much of what this administration has been involved in, in my opinion, has been a farce and failure.

The administration notwithstanding, I believe having on-site school classes is too risky. In spite of the loss of valuable social contact, it is not worth infecting fellow students and those at home. Applying all of the safeguards and limiting the number of students and days of on-site attendance can still result in a continuation of the spreading pandemic. 

So…keep the kids at home and encourage them to adapt to online learning.  Make the lessons more interesting and challenging. Some kind of additional incentives might help. As to the issue of food for those families that depend on the schools for such programs, that can be handled separately by agencies that specialize in food distribution for the needy.

Arnold Silverman
Laguna Beach

Artillery Fear

I feared the continuing artillery

As I heard shells screaming by.

I prayed none were addressed to me

For if so, I would surely die.

We dug our holes as deep as we could

And found boulders to try to hide.

But none of that mattered much should

One come close to your side.

Most of us were blessed I guess

In that we made it back to the States.

But for all these years I still get stressed

When that scary screaming recreates.

Arnold Silverman

Laguna Beach