Pierside Village Passes City Council Test, Now Faces Tougher Exam by State, Court

A controversial plan to build more commercial development on the city’s main beach has won a victory, but now goes to court.

The Pierside Village project--a lightning rod for protest by environmental groups in the past six months--won, in concept, a 5-2 endorsement by the City Council late Tuesday night. The council voted in support of a scaled-down version of the “restaurant row” proposal after a long, emotional public hearing.

But Pierside Village is not in the clear yet.

The project cannot proceed beyond the talking stage unless the State Lands Commission drops its opposition to having more commercial buildings on public beach right-of-way. The state panel, despite pleas and heavy lobbying by the city, has so far steadfastly refused to accept the project.

Consequently, city and state lawyers are scheduled to meet in Orange County Superior Court on Friday morning in a crucial legal encounter involving Pierside Village.

Assistant City Atty. Robert Sangster said the city hopes to get the state’s opposition dismissed without going to trial.

“Basically we’re arguing that the state doesn’t have any (legal) interest in the property,” he explained.

But Robert G. Collins, a deputy state attorney general, said he will argue that the state has a vital interest in the case. The State Lands Commission has rights as an adjoining property owner, and the attorney general’s office has the legal interest of enforcing public easements, said Collins.

At issue in the case is a narrow, two-acre strip of paved-over beach extending from the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway to the intersection of 1st (formerly Lake) Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The land is immediately south of the city’s famous pier. The strip is the site for Maxwell’s Restaurant and a ribbon of paved parking strips extending south to the city’s lifeguard headquarters. None of the land is raw sand or pristine beach.

Environmentalists have charged that any new commercial buildings on the beach would reduce public access and would be “visual pollution.”

In rebuttal, city officials have argued that Pierside Village would be an open, attractive area that would enhance public access to the beach. The buildings would not detract from the ocean view, the city officials have said.

As originally proposed in 1984, Pierside Village would have involved 87,500 square feet of restaurants and other commercial space.

But over the years, the project has been scaled down. As presented to the City Council on Tuesday night, the proposal called for 25,000 square feet of new restaurant development, plus 15,000 square feet for a relocation of Maxwell’s.

“This plan is definitely an improvement, but the basic problem is that it is inherently flawed because it puts commercial development on the beach side of Pacific Coast Highway,” said Councilwoman Grace Winchell. “This beach is our crown. . . . Let’s not destroy the crown.”

Winchell and Councilman Peter M. Green cast the opposing votes against Pierside Village on Tuesday. Green said the council’s vote was premature since the legal action by the state is still pending.

The other five members of the council said they believe that Pierside Village deserves support now. “This is a great plan,” said Councilman Wes Bannister. Councilman John Erskine said he thought much of the opposition to the restaurant proposal had been based on “pure and unadulterated propaganda.”

The vote Tuesday night does not legally commit the city to back Pierside Village, according to the city attorney’s office. The council’s action was akin to a straw vote on a concept rather than a specific plan. But the vote was pivotal in that it clearly showed a majority of the council wants to pursue the development.

The legal obstacles ahead, however, including the court action scheduled Friday, will determine whether the council can move ahead with Pierside Village. Curtis Fossum, senior counsel for the State Lands Commission, said on Wednesday that the state agency remains opposed to Pierside Village, regardless of its size.

“Our position is that we still must defend the public’s right-of-way,” Fossum said.

Proposed Area in Legal Tug-of-War Proposed site for Pierside Village