Day labor lawsuit resolved

***FOR THE RECORD: A story titled, “Day labor lawsuit resolved,” [Coastline Pilot, Dec. 12] should have stated that, in a court case titled “Porto v. City of Laguna Beach,” the judge dismissed seven of the claims without leave to amend and dismissed four of the claims with 20 days leave to amend from the Nov. 19 date of the order.***

The city of Laguna Beach has been victorious in a long-running action brought by Eileen Garcia charging that the day labor site on Laguna Canyon Road violated federal immigration laws and was a misuse of public funds.

The court decision was one of six in which the city was victorious in recent weeks, City Atty. Philip Kohn announced at the Dec. 2 council meeting.

“Garcia and others appealed the trial court decision in which the city had prevailed and a judgment had been entered,” Kohn said. “The trial court judgment was upheld.”

Opposition to the day labor center became a hot issue with folks dedicated to stopping illegal immigration.

In January 2006, the Minutemen rallied at the site and appeared at the Jan. 10 City Council meeting to protest the day labor center. Garcia was among the speakers.

The next month, Garcia applied for participation in the Patriot’s Day Parade, which was denied. The Minutemen went to court, but the judge ruled that the parade committee had the right to regulate participants.

Garcia then discovered in 2006 that Caltrans actually owned the parcel on which the day labor center operated and informed the agency. Caltrans ordered the center closed June 29. In July, the city signed a one-year lease for the use of the parcel.

Unable to sway city officials, Garcia and others took legal action in 2007. The case was assigned to be heard in November by Judge H. Warren Siegel.

City Manager Ken Frank said the city’s options were limited if the plaintiffs prevailed. Options included appealing the decision, designating another site, or rescinding the city ordinance that stipulates the present location of the center in the canyon.

“If we rescind the ordinance, the day workers can congregate wherever they want on public property,” City Manager Ken Frank said at the time. “Damn stupid.”

Under city law, day laborers are only allowed to solicit work at the designated site on Laguna Canyon Road.

Complaints by North Laguna residents about the disturbance of neighborhood tranquillity by the job seekers and potential employers led city officials to designate the canyon site as a day labor center in 1993. The South Coast Cross Cultural Council subsequently took over the operation, funded annually by a city grant and private donations.

?

More legal victories

Laguna Beach also prevailed in five other court cases.

?Ross v. Laguna Beach, charging violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was dismissed

?A Federal Court judge dismissed Zilliot v. Laguna Beach.

The Police Department was accused of wrongful arrest and the use of excessive force by a man convicted of assault on a police officer.

?The Orange County Superior Court agreed that the city had the right to deny an application to construct a spa on the ocean side of the Contursi’s bluff-top property, based on conditions approved for the home restricting the location of structures on the property.

?Kenney v. the city challenged the validity of an assessment for a utility undergrounding district in Orange County Superior Court and lost.

?Porto v. the city, the police department, officers and lifeguards, heard in federal court was dismissed. The plaintiff claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when he was cited for entering ocean waters against the orders of lifeguards.

“My record is not as good as Phil’s,” City Manager Ken Frank said. “I am 0 for 1.”

?

Zigner settlement

Frank was referring to the settlement of the claim filed by Mark Zigner for $134,000.

“A staff member made an incorrect decision that cost Mr. Zigner money “” for which we have agreed to reimburse him,” Frank said.

Zigner was told during the processing of his application to develop his property that the parcel included a watercourse, which required specific setbacks. It was subsequently determined that the watercourse did not exist, but Zigner was not notified.

He only found out about the error when his project was almost finished.

According to Kohn, Zigner claimed if he had known about the error in time, he could have designed the home he wanted, not spent money on a project he didn’t want.

BARBARA DIAMOND can be reached at (949) 494-4321 or coastlinepilot@latimes.com.