LAGUNA NIGUEL : City to Appeal Removal of Ban

The city of Laguna Niguel will appeal a recent court decision that lifted a building moratorium on property once slated for parkland.

After hours of closed-session discussions over the past 10 days, the City Council decided Tuesday to appeal the ruling. The moratorium had stopped the construction of at least 65 homes in the Marina Hills development. The council also agreed to continue pursuing a lawsuit against developer Taylor Woodrow Homes over the validity of a deed that transferred 96 acres to the developer that was once intended for city parkland.

A memo released by the city Wednesday said the actions are necessary to ensure that “the public’s interests are protected” and that the facts surrounding the land dispute are revealed.

Once the city receives confirmation of the court order lifting the moratorium, construction can resume in the development area, Community Development Director Robert Lenard said Wednesday. Despite the decision to appeal, there is no legal justification for withholding building permits unless the city obtains a restraining order, Lenard said.

After the July 25 decision by Judge Floyd H. Schenk to lift the moratorium because the city did not hold a fact-finding hearing before imposing the freeze, the developer requested building permits for 29 homes, fewer than 20 of which are in the disputed area, said L. Allan Songstad Jr., Taylor Woodrow Homes’ attorney.

The dispute between Laguna Niguel and Taylor Woodrow revolves around how the 96 acres in question was deeded to the developer. The developer says the land transfer and development approvals were properly granted by city and county agencies.

However, the district attorney’s office chose to investigate whether the land was improperly transferred to Taylor Woodrow, prompting the council to impose the building ban. No criminal charges were filed, but the Orange County Grand Jury criticized the way city officials and developers handled the transaction.

Also on Tuesday, the council directed its attorneys and staff to review issues not addressed by the grand jury, including “the extent to which the public has been damaged” by the developer’s decision to substitute active recreation areas for the natural open space called for in an earlier development plan.