Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Laguna Niguel council adopts resolutions to pursue eminent domain for Crown Valley Parkway widening

Laguna Niguel City Council · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Laguna Niguel City Council voted June 16 to adopt two resolutions of necessity allowing commencement of eminent-domain proceedings to acquire small partial-fee interests and temporary construction easements on two parcels needed for the Crown Valley Parkway westbound widening. Property owners objected, citing operational impacts and appraisal concerns.

The Laguna Niguel City Council voted June 16 to adopt two resolutions of necessity enabling the city to begin eminent-domain proceedings to acquire property needed for the Crown Valley Parkway westbound widening project.

City staff described the project as adding a fourth westbound lane on Crown Valley Parkway between the I-5 southbound off-ramp and roughly 100 feet west of the Oso Creek bridge, widening adjacent bridges and sidewalks, modifying signals, constructing a retaining wall and repaving. Senior management analyst Everett said the city seeks limited interests on two parcels: at 25991 Crown Valley Parkway (APN 636-034-08, owned by HNS Energy LLC) the city seeks a 6,366-square-foot partial-fee interest and a 1,724-square-foot 12‑month temporary construction easement; at 26022 Cape Drive (APN 636-0346, Carpenter family interests) the city seeks a 1,979-square-foot partial-fee interest and a 967-square-foot six‑month temporary construction easement.

Why it matters: Staff said these acquisitions are necessary to construct the roadway improvements and recommended the four statutory findings required for a resolution of necessity. Staff also reported updated offers of just compensation to HNS Energy LLC (May 1, 2026) and to the Carpenter heirs/representatives (May 11, 2026) and that notices of the hearing were mailed on May 27, 2026.

Property owners and their counsel registered objections at the hearing. HNS owner Sal Hassan said the taking would remove parking and the station’s price sign and stressed operational continuity. "We need parking spaces. We need price sign," Hassan said, adding that "without a price sign, the station can't operate legally." Counsel for HNS argued the city should process land‑use approvals or a variance to allow the gas station and car wash to remain legal after any acquisition, and challenged whether the city's refreshed appraisal and notice procedures had been handled properly. "If you close down this gas station, you're buying an 8 to 10 million gas station facility in business," counsel Rick Fese told the council.

Steven Carpenter, representing the owners of 26022 Cape Drive, said the city's title information was inaccurate and that prior valuations relied on outdated ownership records: he told the council that Eva C. Carpenter had died on May 20, 2020 and asked that the city correct title records before proceeding. The city attorney and staff responded that an initial notice of decision to appraise had been sent in 2022, that property owners had opportunities to participate in appraisal discussions, and that the city refreshed appraisals because the earlier valuations were several years old. Staff emphasized that the amount of compensation is a negotiable issue and not before the council at the resolution-of-necessity hearing.

Council action and next steps: The council adopted the resolution of necessity for APN 636-034-08 and for APN 636346 by motion; the meeting record shows motions carried. Adoption authorizes the city to proceed with eminent-domain filings for those interests while negotiations over compensation and any land-use matters continue. Staff said compensation and appraisal sufficiency remain subject to negotiation and formal valuation processes; the council did not bind future land‑use decisions as part of the settlements.

What remains unresolved: Property owners and counsel pressed operational concerns (signage, parking, nonconforming-use implications) and disputed appraisal notice and title details. City staff said those topics remain negotiable in parallel to eminent-domain proceedings. The council did not vote on any land-use variances or site approvals during the hearing.

The city's next procedural steps are to complete the eminent-domain filings and continue negotiations over just compensation and any post‑acquisition land‑use resolutions, with further communications to the affected property owners expected as the process continues.