LAGUNA HILLS : PUC Rebukes City for Opposing Bridge

The state Public Utilities Commission, sharply rebuking the city, has rejected a bid to halt construction of a bridge between Cabot Road and a proposed 49-acre commercial development in Mission Viejo.

Laguna Hills officials approached the PUC last February, asking the commission to halt construction of the bridge on the grounds of potential environmental effects.

The bridge is vital to the project because the parcel is locked between the Interstate 5 and railroad tracks west of the freeway. PUC approval is needed for any bridge that crosses a railroad right of way.

But on Monday, the PUC ruled against Laguna Hills, issuing a sharply worded statement that accused the city of using “the facade of environmental alarmism as a blunt instrument for obstruction and delay.”

PUC member Patricia Eckert wrote that the effort to block the bridge borders “on abuse of our regulatory process.”

Mission Viejo city officials hope to see an auto mall built on the property, which is located alongside the freeway near Oso Parkway and Cabot Road.

The project could bring more than $1 million in annual sales tax revenue to the city, Mission Viejo officials say.

The auto center would be a joint venture between the city and the landowner, the Mission Viejo Co.

But in newly incorporated Laguna Hills, where residential neighborhoods overlook the development, City Council members fear the impact of a large commercial development.

Laguna Hills officials have accused Mission Viejo of not giving them a voice in the project.

However, Mission Viejo Co. officials contended that permission to build in the area was granted by the county in 1986.

Laguna Hills promised to live by that agreement when it incorporated last year, company spokesperson Wendy Wetzel said.

“We feel that their action with the PUC was not only inappropriate, but it was also dishonorable,” Wetzel said.

Laguna Hills officials called the PUC’s decision inaccurate and excessive.

“The idea that we held up this application is preposterous,” City Atty. Lois Jeffrey said. “We applied to file a late motion (in February) and (the PUC) accepted it. Then they sat on their hands and did nothing for months.”

In the ruling, the PUC found that environmental concerns were addressed during hearings when the county granted approval of the site plan in 1986.

But Jeffrey claimed that potential problems such as traffic weren’t adequately addressed by the county.

The city is studying its options, which include challenging the decision in court or asking the PUC for a rehearing.

The Mission Viejo Co. and the city of Mission Viejo have filed lawsuits against Laguna Hills for interfering with the project. Laguna Hills has taken legal action against both Mission Viejo and the developer.

All three cases are in litigation.