Council votes to relocate yard to ACT V

Barbara Diamond

Laguna Beach will move forward on the relocation of the corporation

yard to the ACT V parking lot without waiting for the parcel to be

annexed into the city.

“I do not see why we are not annexing the property to do a city

project on city land,” Laguna Greenbelt Inc. President Elisabeth

Brown said. “It says to the community at large that the project would

not meet city standards. I am not a fan of this project, but even if

I was, doing it this way smells.”

The council voted 3 to 2 to approve a resolution requested by the

Local Agency Formation Commission affirming the city’s intention to

annex the parcel with the understanding that annexation would not be

required as a condition of occupancy for the new facility.

“We can move ahead on this project, but have an agenda item to

stipulate that the project is subject to city rules,” Councilman

Steve Dicterow said.

ACT V was purchased by the city in 1996. The next year, the

council voted to move the corporation yard to the parcel.

That project was dumped, but has been revived even though a design

competition had been held for the Village Entrance, which specified

the inclusion of the corporation yard.

Dicterow, Elizabeth Pearson and Cheryl Kinsman, who also

resurrected the relocation, voted to proceed with the relocation

project under the county, seen by the three as faster and cheaper.

Further discussion, Dicterow opined, would not be productive.

Mayor Toni Iseman and Councilman Wayne Baglin opposed the

resolution.

“Have we ever had the county do planning on another city project?”

Iseman said. “Why are we doing that?”

City Manager Ken Frank said he couldn’t remember county planners

working on any city projects, but the goal of a council majority is

to construct the corporation yard at ACT V in a reasonable time

frame.

Moving forward with the project under county jurisdiction would be

the most expedient course of action, Frank said.

Annexation could set the project back anywhere from nine to 18

months, he said. Under the county, the project could be put out to

bid in the spring.

“It certainly appears that annexation hasn’t been started because

it would be a more arduous process,” Top of the World resident

Johanna Felder said.

In addition to procedural concerns, opponents also brought up the

loss of summer parking at ACT V.

The California Coastal Commission will require parking spaces lost

at ACT V because of the construction to be replaced elsewhere.

“The question is how many spaces will we have to replace,” Franks

said. “Historically, we parked 190 cars in the gravel. After we

re-graded, we parked double that.”

Iseman said the elimination of parking at ACT V would sabotage the

highly successful free tram service that lured a record number of

drivers to park last summer on the city’s outskirts. The council has

approved free trams again for this coming Festival season.

Reading from a presentation by Laguna Canyon Conservancy President

Carolyn Wood, Jeane Bernstein said the corporation yard has been

identified as a part of the Village Entrance project, and removing it

should trigger a separate California Environmental Quality Act study.

“The council would have to make the findings that relocation is

the best alternative,” Wood said. “I don’t think that finding can be

made.”

Baglin, who said he has fought a losing battle against moving the

corporation yard to ACT V, said the council’s decision could have

dire consequences.

“We may all end up losing on this,” Baglin said. “There is an

opportunity for litigation in this. It is seen as a linchpin. It is

an opportunity for a citizen’s initiative and that could cost

considerable time, aggravation and money.”