Landowner’s Plans Pit Him Against City : Development: Laguna Niguel and casino owner Jack B. Binion are locked in a bitter and expensive fight over his proposal to build 32 ocean-view homes.

Tacked on the wall of the City Council chambers is a photograph of hilltop property overlooking the Orange County coastline. Superimposed over the vegetation and cactus is a computer simulation of exclusive homes on the ridge.

The landowner, Jack B. Binion, who also owns the Horseshoe Casino in Las Vegas, has for several years been seeking city approval to build those homes, each with a stunning view of the seascape below.

The proposal has made for an expensive and bitter fight between city planners and Binion, not only about the multimillion-dollar project’s approval, but also over the very process used to review its environmental and other impacts.

As a result, Binion this year filed two lawsuits in Superior Court accusing the city of deceptive and illegal tactics in an effort to derail the project. Neither side expects the struggle to end soon.

The chasm between the two sides was perhaps best captured by one moment during the Oct. 15 public hearing on the proposal for the 22-acre site.

City planners were providing the public and the five planning commissioners with a list of design flaws and other problems they see in the project. Presenting those findings on an overhead projector, the staff used a contour drawing of a house magically levitating in midair above the sloping property where a bicycle trail is to be built below.

From the audience, Binion’s lawyers broke into gales of exaggerated laughter. None of the planning staff even smiled.

According to City Atty. Terry Dixon, the planning staff’s dilemma is that it is analyzing a project that Binion has revised several times since it was originally presented to them.

“You have a levitating house because they have presented us with a grading plan that says one thing and then a visual analysis that says another,” Dixon said in an interview. “We are still not sure what they really intend to do.”

Binion bought the property at the end of Skyview Way in 1978. He submitted a project proposal on July 25, 1990, to build on 32 lots.

Since then, Binion has spent about $190,000 to have the city and its consultants analyze the project’s environmental impacts, according to Steve Long, an engineer working for Binion on the project.

Before groundbreaking can start, however, the city must approve a coastal development permit and amendment to the city’s General Plan for 32 dwellings on the land. To do that, the entire project must be analyzed for its potential environmental impact and then voted on by the city Planning Commission.

It is the preparation of that document--the environmental impact report--that has led to the bitter dispute.

The draft report, which was published late last month and is the subject of a series of ongoing public hearings, has been called “a joke” by Binion’s lawyers.

Attorneys for Binion have declined to discuss the project while litigation is pending. But according to public testimony from William Holzwarth, an attorney for Binion, the project revisions were made at the city’s behest, and the draft environmental impact report amounts to “a mass of distorted information” that portrays the project in a most ludicrous light.

“This project has been yanked around for over two years,” Holzwarth told the city Environmental Review Board last week. “And unfortunately there is a lot of information the staff has not given you.”

But the city says it is Binion’s side that has failed to provide supporting documentation for some of the proposed revisions, a charge Binion’s lawyers deny.

The dispute has left those overseeing the process confused.

“Never have I seen so much finger-pointing going on,” said Peter Hersh, a member of the Environmental Review Board, which must review the project and recommend action to the Planning Commission. “. . . . Never have we had so many disagreements on what is in front of us.”

As it stands now, the planning staff has recommended that the project be redesigned to minimize a host of “significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.”

The city and its consultant, LSA Associates Inc. of Irvine, have identified faults in almost every phase of the project. These criticisms range from problems with street width and configuration not conforming to city code to inadequate brush fire protection.

However, Binion lawyers accused the staff of hiding data that supports Binion’s project proposal. In lawsuits against the city, they challenged the General Plan’s jurisdiction and asked for a writ of mandate to banish those city personnel associated with the project from further participation. They also asked the court to appoint a special master to handle city approvals for the project.

Dixon, who has said that the lawsuits “make no sense,” said that the city has begun to prepare its defense. There has been no court date set, nor are any settlement negotiations planned.

Even under a cloud of litigation, the Binion project continues to move through the city approval process.

The city is collecting input and critique from its planning staff, the developer, the public, and its Environmental Review Board on the draft environmental impact report. After collecting that additional information, a final report will be written for the Planning Commission. It can certify the environmental impact report and, if so, vote on approving the project. It would then go to the City Council, which will have final say.

The Planning Commission will hear additional public comment at its next meeting Tuesday and will not decide the project’s fate before December.