Laguna Niguel Maps Strategy to Keep Lucrative Coast Strip

Laguna Niguel cityhood leaders are preparing for what could be their last chance to keep their coast without taking it to court.

The county’s Local Agency Formation Commission on Wednesday is scheduled to reconsider its decision to give a disputed coastal strip of Laguna Niguel to the proposed city of Dana Point/Capistrano Beach.

Organizers of Laguna Niguel Citizens Task Force for Incorporation have scheduled a Sunday night town rally, where they expect 1,000 Laguna Niguel residents to respond to two alternatives the task force has sent to Lafco that would enable Laguna Niguel to keep all or part of its coast.

Besides the current incorporation proposals for Laguna Niguel and Dana Point/Capistrano Beach, Laguna Niguel’s cityhood leaders will ask Lafco to address:

A combined city called Dana Niguel, including Laguna Niguel, the disputed coast, Dana Point and Capistrano Beach.

An abridged Laguna Niguel, dividing up the Niguel coast so that everything southeast of Niguel Road would go to Dana Point, and the area northwest of Niguel Road would go to Laguna Niguel.

Historic Part of Community

“We’re not trying to gain a coastal identity, we’re trying not to lose one,” said task force chairman Bruce Rasner, noting that the coastal area is a historic part of the community.

The original Laguna Niguel cityhood proposal before Lafco calls for a city that would stretch from South Laguna to Dana Point, bounded by Interstate 5 and the ocean.

But Lafco--the agency that recommends incorporation proposals to the Board of Supervisors--voted on Dec. 2 to give the coastal strip to Dana Point, following a Nov. 2 advisory election, when 61% of residents voting in the coastal area chose incorporating with Dana Point rather than remain in Laguna Niguel’s proposed boundaries.

The coastal area consists of 13 subdivisions between Laguna Niguel’s northern and southern boundaries, but ending at Del Avion in the east.

Two weeks ago, commissioners decided that they would conduct more public hearings on both cityhood proposals, on advice from Lafco’s legal counsel. Laguna Niguel leaders say they were not legally notified of a Dec. 2 meeting, when Lafco discussed the coastal strip and gave it to Dana Point. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires governmental agencies to provide public notice of meetings.

In addition, the task force filed a lawsuit against Lafco, accusing the commission of violating the California Government Code, which requires Lafco to consider how an incorporation will affect the areas adjacent to the proposed city.

“I have confidence in our legal position, but we’re offering two concessions” in a bid to avoid going to court, Rasner said.

Lafco officials have said they will probably stand by their original decision to give the coastal strip to Dana Point, stating that they are committed to the results of the advisory election.

Lafco Chairman Donald Holt said Friday that Niguel’s two alternatives would probably not persuade him to change his mind, unless Dana Point leaders could also agree with it.

“Not unless they (leaders from all sides) stand before the commission united, with some formula or some magical wand to solve the problems (will we agree),” Holt said.

Niguel leaders said they were trying to find a compromise proposal with Dana Point.

However, a joint committee of Dana Point, Capistrano Beach, and Laguna Niguel coastal residents this week unanimously voted not to join talks with Laguna Niguel inlanders if it involved combining their proposed city with Laguna Niguel, or dividing up the coastal area, said Mike Eggers, a spokesman for the group.

100,000 Potential Population

“We do not want to be part of a large city, and we would not support any move that would fractionalize the coastal zone,” Eggers said, noting that a combined city would have a potential population of about 100,000.

“We do not want to be part of a sprawling, inland city,” he said.

Holt said he had been meeting with leaders of both groups to find a compromise solution. He said that no matter what Lafco decides, the issue will probably end up in court. He said he did not want to speak about his discussions with the leaders for fear of jeopardizing a possible answer.

“I’d really hate to play around in the courts,” Holt said. “The only winners will be the attorneys, who will get their money, and the county, which will continue to allow high-density development. The losers will be the people who live in those communities.”

Lafco’s assistant executive officer Jim Colangelo said the agency’s staff is recommending--as it has all along--to have the coast remain in Laguna Niguel.

“It’s pretty obvious which ever way the coast goes, it will improve the city it goes to,” Colangelo said Friday. “So we have to see what will happen to each area without it. . . . If it was just some residential neighborhoods between the two cities, it would be an easier decision, but that’s a major revenue source on the coastline.”

Ritz-Carlton at Issue

The coastal strip includes the lucrative Ritz-Carlton hotel, representing $2.5 million in revenue. Under Laguna Niguel’s divided coast proposal, the Ritz-Carlton would be in Laguna Niguel, not Dana Point.

Colangelo said it was the commission’s decision to conduct the advisory election and to abide by the results. The staff members, however, believe that the coast should remain with Laguna Niguel because developers have long promoted it as “Sea Country,” stretching from Interstate 5 to the ocean, and that people moved there with the intention of having coastal access.

Also, he noted, the Laguna Niguel coast was not included in Dana Point’s original incorporation proposal.

“There is no decision the commission can make that’s going to make everyone happy,” Colangelo said.