Niguel Group Vows to Go to Court to Put a Coast in Its Future

Laguna Niguel cityhood proponents Wednesday vowed to go to court to reclaim their coast, after a county agency decided it would stay with its earlier decision to include the coastal area in the proposed city of Dana Point.

The inland Laguna Niguel residents were protesting a Dec. 2 decision by Orange County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (Lafco) that gave 13 subdivisions in the Laguna Niguel coastal area to Dana Point when it decides whether to become a city next year. Lafco voted Wednesday, 3-0, not to change that decision.

Lafco is the county agency that recommends incorporation proposals to the Board of Supervisors.

About 200 people attended Wednesday’s meeting, which remained peaceful, in contrast with a Nov. 18 Lafco meeting at which 400 Laguna Niguel residents carried signs and led cheers before the commission.

Bruce Rasner, co-chairman of Citizens for a United Laguna Niguel, asked the commission to postpone action on the coast so a compromise could be made that would please both Laguna Niguel and Dana Point communities.

Rasner, who spoke on behalf of Laguna Niguel, told the commissioners that Laguna Niguel residents would prefer to negotiate with Lafco and Dana Point without “filling the pockets of Orange County attorneys.”

But, he added: “We are going to pursue our legal remedies if we are forced to.”

County Supervisors Roger H. Stanton and Gaddi H. Vasquez, who also are Lafco commissioners, did not participate in Wednesday’s vote. Stanton was absent and Vasquez abstained because he had not been present during previous meetings regarding Dana Point and Laguna Niguel.

The three commissioners who voted said they upheld their decision because they were acting on a Nov. 3 advisory election, in which 61% of the coastal residents voted to join Dana Point rather than remain in Laguna Niguel.

Laguna Niguel proponents are questioning the legality of the advisory election, stating that it is not a fair representation because only coastal area voters were allowed to participate.

Rasner said the group’s lawsuit, among other things, will contend that Lafco’s Dec. 2 decision violates the California Government Code, which calls for Lafco to consider how an incorporation will affect the areas adjacent to the proposed city.

He also said Lafco acted unfairly when it gave the coastal strip to Dana Point, after it had voted Nov. 18 to postpone Laguna Niguel’s incorporation proposal until May, pending further financial study of the area without the coast. Rasner said he and his associates left the Nov. 18 meeting believing no action would be taken on the coastal area until May.

But the commissioners Wednesday said it was their responsibility to adhere to the results of the advisory election, which they believed was a mandate of the people who live along the Laguna Niguel coast.

“If we were not to abide by the vote . . . what do you suggest we do with the vote, ignore it?” Commissioner Donald A. Holt asked the audience, to which some of the Laguna Niguel residents replied: “Yes.”

Developers have long promoted Laguna Niguel as “Sea Country,” so inland residents have said they do not want to become landlocked. The Laguna Niguel coast includes existing and proposed luxury hotels, representing an estimated $6 million or more in annual revenues.

Rasner said the Laguna Niguel cityhood group has already raised $10,000 in donations from residents to pay legal fees for a court battle.

“It’s going to be expensive, and we’re going to pay the price,” Rasner said after the meeting. He said a lawsuit would be filed before Jan. 1.

Lafco’s Dec. 2 vote calls for a June, 1988, election for the residents in Dana Point, Capistrano Beach and the Laguna Niguel coast to vote on becoming one city. The proposal will go before the Board of Supervisors, which has scheduled a protest hearing for Jan. 27. Lafco’s action can be overturned if 50% of the residents within the proposed city boundaries submit written protests.