Third Street cottages to be moved

At least four of the cottages on Third Street that must be removed to make way for the proposed community/senior center will be temporarily relocated by the city until a permanent home is found for them.

The City Council voted 4-0 to dip into the General Fund reserve for up to $210,000, the maximum the move to the temporary site is estimated to cost. The city is offering the cottages to the public for the cost of moving them to a permanent location.

Ten offers have been made for one or more of the cottages — one proposed to be moved to Fullerton — but nothing is in writing.

“There are no guarantees,” City Manager Ken Frank said. “We won’t save any money, but we will save the houses.”

The relocation or demolition of the cottage has inflamed the passions of preservationists and supporters of the centers.

Preservation purists want the cottages left on Third Street. Others want them saved, but not necessarily on the original site. Seniors want the cottages gone one way or another, to prevent delays in the ground-breaking for the centers, scheduled for April.

Heritage Committee member Linda Morgenlander, an architect and critic of the centers’ design and proposed location, urged the council to keep the cottage neighborhood intact.

“We oppose the loss of a neighborhood,” Heritage Committee Chair Steve Fairbanks said.

Jill Richardson submitted a letter signed by 19 people protesting the relocation.

“Refurbish them and make them available as affordable housing,” Richardson said.

Anne Caen, speaking on behalf of Village Laguna, said leaving the cottages on Third Street could save money better spent on find another location for the centers.

“The senior center is just paper [plan] — it’s easier to move that the cottages,” Arnold Hano said.

Ann Quilter, co-chair of the Laguna Beach Seniors Inc. fund-raising campaign, opined that it was little late in the game to second-guess the location bought by the city for the centers.

“This project has been going on for four years — the property was bought six years ago,” Quilter said. “We have worked so hard raising money. We have had public hearing after public hearing, and now to have this issue raised in such an emotional fashion at the 10th hour.

“This is not just about cottages, it’s about our seniors. We are talking about flesh-and-blood human beings.

“Preserve the cottages, but in a way that allows seniors to finally have their due,” Quilter said.

The council will hold a hearing on the centers Tuesday.

The agenda for the meeting can be reviewed Friday on the city’s website: www.lagunabeachcity.org.

“We have to break ground on the centers before June 30,” said Councilwoman Elizabeth Pearson-Schneider, the staunchest council supporter of the centers.

“We can demolish the cottages or try to save them.”

The cottage debate flowered when Laguna Canyon property owner Phyllis Phillips offered to put six of the badly deteriorated structures on her R-2 zoned parcel, with the city bearing the expense of the move. The proposal was contingent on the city rezoning her property at the entrance of Canyon Acres.

Some Canyon Acres residents opposed the project, which they felt would overwhelm their neighborhood.

“We want the normal process to be followed,” Eric Caris said. “There is no opposition to accommodating two cottages, but not six. It’s an issue of density. And I am concerned about public funding for a private project.”

Architect Morris Skenderian, speaking on behalf of Phillips, said the idea was to preserve the cottages in a location where they would be visible and provide enjoyment for passersby.

“I see this as a complement to the Canyon Acres neighborhood,” Skenderian said. “I was hopeful the community would embrace this.”

Councilwoman Jane Egly said that it appeared that most of the people who testified really wanted to keep the cottages where they are.

“It’s too late, my loves,” she said.

Egly, who had been leery of the proposal to store the cottages until “adopters” were approved, said the number of offers tendered to the city made her more comfortable with the notion.

Newly seated Councilman Kelly Boyd said he had not favored using the taxpayers’ money in the reserve fund till he read documents claiming that the construction costs for the centers would increase $82,000 every month it was delayed.

The decision to dip into the reserve required four votes, with only four council members eligible to vote. Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman recused herself in the middle of the hearing when it became obvious that testimony would not be restricted to the agenda item but would include comments about the centers.

Kinsman owns property within 500 feet of the centers and is prohibited by state conflict of interest laws from voting on an item that concerns the project.