Laguna Hills Urged to Delay Renewed Push for Cityhood

Residents of Laguna Hills, attending a packed meeting Tuesday night, heard a key government official tell them to delay any future bid for cityhood until after Laguna Niguel’s vote on incorporation this November.

Evelyn R. Hart, chairwoman of the Local Agency Formation Commission, told the residents, “We need to know what Laguna Niguel is going to do, and I also think you need a cooling-off period.”

Hart was one of several speakers at a meeting of about 200 residents at the Great American Savings Building on Paseo de Valencia Street. The meeting, sponsored by the Laguna Hills Community Assn., was called to get the opinions of residents following the June 6 vote on incorporation that failed by a narrow margin.

About three-fourths of those attending the meeting were residents of Leisure World, a show of hands indicated. Leisure World, a retirement community in Laguna Hills, voted overwhelmingly against incorporation.

Opposition to Cityhood Move

Many of the Leisure World representatives told the meeting that most of their neighbors oppose any new move to form a city. They referred to statements made recently by some cityhood advocates urging a new ballot attempt within the next year or less.

The commission rules on the eligibility of cityhood measures for the ballot. Hart, who is a Newport Beach city councilwoman, is currently the chairwoman of that key agency, and she made it clear that she thinks Laguna Hills should wait to attempt cityhood again and should not try to form too small a city.

Hart noted that some advocates at the meeting talked of forming a city without Leisure World that would have a population of about 24,000.

“I would be very hesitant to draw very small little boundaries giving you no place to go,” Hart told the audience. She added, “Don’t make your city too small. I’m not from a big city--Newport Beach only has about 70,000 people--but I know the financial problems cities can have, and you need a good financial base.”

No vote was taken at the session, which was solely for discussion of options for Laguna Hills. But following the public meeting, Mary Anderson, president of the Laguna Hills Community Assn., said that group would form a committee to further study the options.

Many of those at the meeting who were not from Leisure World clearly expressed a preference for cityhood, and some spoke bitterly of Leisure World’s decisive vote in the close June election.

“I don’t want Leisure World to become a part of our city,” said one Laguna Hills man. “I want Leisure World to be annexed by Irvine, and then Irvine will tell them how long they can leave their garage doors open and what color they can paint things.”

Another Laguna Hills man who spoke bitterly about the Leisure World majority vote said: “I think the people of Leisure World have to realize that they use the streets and other services outside their walls.”

Larger Voter Turnout

In rebuttal, one woman from Leisure World who said she had favored the cityhood vote on June 6, told the meeting, “I’m getting tired of hearing this bashing of Leisure World. Those of us who favored (cityhood for Laguna Hills) got out our vote in Leisure World, but unfortunately not enough people got out in Laguna Hills.”

She referred to the fact that Leisure World had a much larger voter turnout than the surrounding area.

The ballot measure lost by only 284 votes in a turnout of 17,686 voters. A post-election analysis showed that 66% of Leisure World residents voted against it, while 83% of residents in Laguna Hills outside of Leisure World voted in favor.

The Laguna Hills Community Assn. called the meeting Tuesday to allow all sides to discuss where to go from here, Anderson said.

Laguna Hills had been involved in an earlier cityhood battle when a much larger incorporation was planned for parts of Saddleback Valley. That larger proposed city was voted down last November, and Laguna Hills residents overwhelmingly opposed incorporation into such a larger city.

Anderson noted, however, that the area residents, excluding Leisure World, clearly indicated by their June 6 vote that they favor forming a smaller city based essentially around Laguna Hills.

Under state law, the same area may not vote for cityhood until two years after an attempt has failed. The law, however, allows a new attempt on the ballot if the area to be incorporated is not “substantially the same” as the failed effort. Pro-cityhood advocates in Laguna Hills contend that dropping Leisure World from a new attempt for incorporation would make the issue “substantially different.”