Appeals Court OKs Development of Laguna Niguel Bluff

An appellate court has overturned a lower court’s decision favoring a South Laguna citizens group in its long and bitter dispute with Laguna Niguel and Las Vegas developer Jack Binion over plans to build 22 homes atop a bluff overlooking South Coast Highway.

The 4th District Court of Appeal reversed Superior Court Judge William F. McDonald’s ruling that Laguna Niguel had violated its local coastal plan when granting development rights for the property and needed to revisit parts of its 1995 decision to allow Binion to build.

The nearly decade-long struggle over the fate of the scenic cliffs above South Coast Highway may still not be over, however.

Although disappointed by the latest setback, South Laguna Civic Assn. officials say they will take the fight to the state Supreme Court if necessary to block the development, which they say will cause flooding downhill.

“Our community is not going to go away just because a group of judges doesn’t understand the local coastal plan,” said Michael Beanan, vice president of the association, which has waged the fight with financial help from the city of Laguna Beach.

“There’s no way we’re going to step back,” Beanan added. “This is about the safety of our community.”

Binion representatives and officials with the city of Laguna Niguel, which was named a co-defendant in the suit, applauded the appeals court’s decision.

“This is a complete victory for Laguna Niguel,” City Manager Tim Casey said. “We won on all the appeal issues.”

The decision “demonstrates that the city staff, Planning Commission and City Council properly processed this subdivision proposal and made their best decision,” he said.

Barbara Lichman, an attorney for the South Laguna Civic Assn., took issue with the appellate court’s ruling, saying it ignored the work done by the lower court.

“The law requires deference to the trial court,” Lichman said.

Judge McDonald had found that Binion’s project was too visible from South Coast Highway, violating the city’s coastal plan--a set of state-required regulations governing coastal development.

While the appellate court observed that the development plans conflicted with some environmental and coastal requirements, “the law does not require an exact ‘match,’ ” the opinion said.

“In short, the final approval represents the city’s best attempt to balance the environmental concerns inherent in trying to preserve coastal resources with the economic considerations inherent in developing coastal property.”

In Laguna Beach, which spent about $120,000 to support the civic association’s legal action, officials said they had not yet read the court’s decision and could not comment.