Moving the maintenance yard will create more parking

Elizabeth Pearson

As someone recently said to me, “The debate over the maintenance yard

can be easily summed up by asking: Do you want more parking close to

town or more parking out in the canyon?”

The Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce and Downtown business

community, as well as the 17 arts groups that make up the Laguna

Beach Arts Alliance (not a small minority, by the way) have a strong

opinion about it: They want more year-round, close-to-town parking --

instead of more parking out at the Act V lot -- which is primarily

used two months out of the year. For example, while the Laguna

Playhouse publishes the fact that the Act V lot is available for

parking when people come into town for plays, I understand it is

rarely used. People want to be able to park close by and walk to the

theater. I would think that this is especially true in the middle of

January, when it is cold and rainy. Residents tell me they aren’t

going to go and park out there, and then come to town. They want more

parking close to the Downtown.

There have been some claims that by moving the Maintenance Yard

out to the back of the Act V lot, it would mean that we would stop

our summer (and now expanded) shuttle service to that parking lot.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We would still have hundred

of spaces in the front of the lot. There’s not a person on our City

Council who doesn’t want to continue the shuttle service out to the

Act V lot.

The majority of the City Council has worked, since I began serving

on City Council almost two years ago, to move forward with plans that

were originally approved, then over-turned by a different council, to

move the city’s “motor pool” to the back of the Act V lot. There are

two key reasons for this. We wanted to create a maintenance yard that

would give our employees who work out of those old buildings better

working conditions -- and we wanted to clear the space and make way

for a beautiful village entrance with a large garage. Almost two

years of work.

After the majority City Council voted to move forward with the

maintenance yard move and the county’s Planning Commission approved

the project at the Act V lot, local activists attempted to overturn

the Planning Commission’s decision by appealing to the county’s Board

of Supervisors -- however, the board denied the appeal and approved

the project unanimously.

Then, Councilmember Toni Iseman appealed the project to the

California Coastal Commission -- a body on which she serves. She can

vote on this issue, even though it is clear she is not objective on

the subject. City staff and Mayor Cheryl Kinsman and I presented to

the Coastal Commission, and after five hours of presentations and

input from the public, it was continued to a future date.

Recently Iseman and I began meeting informally to discuss ways in

which a compromise be reached.

I have indicated publicly that, in my view:

* It is in the best interest of the city to maintain peripheral

parking at the Act V lot and that the summer (and extended time)

shuttle should continue;

* We need more parking closer to the Downtown -- which is what I

promised the arts groups and Downtown businesses I would work for if

I was elected;

* There are ways to reduce the size of the footprint in the

proposed Act V maintenance yard. This would allow us to either make

room for more parking spaces or allow us to pull the project away

from some of the open space in the back. I have suggested some

alternatives;

* A Maintenance Yard move and the creation of a beautiful Village

Entrance (you will recall that I served with dozens of other

hard-working Lagunans almost 10 years ago, as a planning

commissioner, on a Village Entrance Task Force) with a parking garage

that can park 450 to 650 cars right next to the Downtown is something

we should pro-actively pursue. The funding is earmarked for the move

and building of the new maintenance yard. Funding is still required

to build the Village Entrance and garage. I have gone on record as

saying I could support financing for that project if it were paid

with dedicated parking revenues for the next 20 years, not taxpayer

dollars.

The current Act V parking lot was expanded after the initial

engineering for the maintenance yard project at that location was

completed. The expanded parking lot never received permits and is

probably illegal. Why didn’t the additional grading and encroachment

into the open space -- and the lack of permitting -- ever receive

scrutiny?

At the council meeting Tuesday, Iseman and I agreed to be the

“official” team on the council to try to work out a compromise. I

agreed to do this only under the condition that we not drag out the

time between our meetings. I’m ready to get something done. Iseman

and I work well together. However, in moving forward, it is my hope

that she and I will agree that neither of us will take an “all or

nothing” approach to reaching a compromise. That she will not say,

“Nothing can be built on that lot except parking.” And that I will

not say, “All the facilities at the current location have to be on

the back of the Act V lot.”

For my part, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “I’m

willing to compromise.”

* ELIZABETH PEARSON is a member of the Laguna Beach City Council.