LYNWOOD — The city of Lynwood plans to ask an appellate court to reconsider a decision that may have revived the controversial Angeles Fields project.

At a special City Council meeting this week, Mayor Pro Tem Aide Castro and Council members Jim Morton and Alfredo Flores directed the city’s special counsel to file the necessary papers in the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency vs. Angeles Fields Partners case.

John McDonald’s Angeles Fields Partners, formerly known as Imperial Partners, has apparently won an appeal filed against the Redevelopment Agency after the city terminated an exclusive negotiating agreement it had inherited from a previous City Council.

McDonald, who could not be reached for comment, was awarded an exclusive negotiating agreement by the City Council in 2005 to develop a major redevelopment project. Four of the five members of the City Council were recalled from office two years later.

On Oct. 2, 2007, the same day the county Board of Supervisors certified the results of that recall election, the outgoing council members held a special meeting to amend the Angeles Fields exclusive negotiating agreement that would have allowed for a proposed project that at one point included a football stadium, 1,300 housing units, a super shopping center, theaters and a couple of hotels and would have displaced more than 1,000 families and businesses in the northeast corner of the city.

Within days of the extended agreement, Castro, who was not on the City Council at the time, and resident Joanette Guttierez filed for an injunction against the last-minute amendment to the agreement and a Superior Court ruled the last-minute vote on Oct. 2 was void, according to state law.

Within the same month, the new council members elected to replace the ousted four, were sworn in and canceled the negotiating agreement.

Angeles Fields appealed the decision and the appellate court recently ruled that the recalled council members were still in office when they voted on the two agreements because their successors had not yet been sworn to office.

The Second Appellate District Court of Appeal also ruled “there is no showing that the agreements are unconscionable for either party to the contracts.”

Castro said in an interview this week that in losing this appeal, Angeles Fields can consider this a victory, but that it isn’t something residents affected by the proposed project should worry about.

Castro said she couldn’t really comment on the matter because it was a legal matter but said she wanted to make sure residents don’t believe the rumors being spread throughout the community about her — and Mayor Maria Santillan — selling their homes to Angeles Fields, or selling out the community.

“It’s one thing to attack me,” Castro said. “But it’s another thing when you attack my community. I don’t appreciate residents being lied to by proponents of a recall against me just so they can win their support.”

Because it is considered a litigation matter, City Attorney Fred Galante said he could not comment.

He did say the city had three options to conisder.

“The city can sit back and do nothing,” Galante said. “Or the city can [ask] the Court of Appeals to review and reconsider their decision, or the city can file for an appeal … and my sense is that the council will have further discussions about that. But at this time, the hearing is a procedural aspect that the city’s special counsel will pursue.”

City Manager Roger Haley said he didn’t feel comfortable commenting on the matter since it was a legal matter. But he did say he is concerned about residents in the area who have been misinformed about the city losing the appeal and what it means to them and their homes.

“Anyone who has any questions are advised to call the city first for objective information,” he said. “If the public is receiving any type of information, anonymous or not, we would like them to call the city first. … There are no plans in any books where the city is planning on acquiring any homes that were once a part of this Angeles Fields project area. Residents should remain calm, if they have any questions, they should call the city for the answers.”

Castro said she believes Angeles Fields won the appeal on a technicality.

There were a lot of things that should have been pointed out to the Court of Appeal that were either not considered or not read, Castro said.

Not only did the former council members violate the Brown Act by not posting their special meeting of Oct. 2, 2007, but they had also already been officially recalled, according to the Board of Supervisors, Castro said. Additionally, the opinion states that the newly elected officers were not yet qualified to be council members because they had not yet taken the oath of office. There are points that should have been pointed out, among them, was that the recalled council members had continued to stall the swearing-in process.

Nevertheless, Galante said he would like the community to know that there are laws, including Proposition 99, that prohibits cities from acquiring residential property through eminent domain.

“If the city does nothing else, and does not file for a reconsideration or appeals at the Superior Court level, then the city will have to go back to the negotiating table with Angeles Fields. … It doesn’t mean that the development is going forward, it just means that we just have to go back to the table to see if this project is feasible. … And there are lot of reasons why it’s no longer feasible, for one, there is Prop. 99.”

Residents worried over the appeal received a flier at their homes saying that Santillan and Castro had sold their homes to the Angeles Fields developer. Residents were also told verbally that the special meeting was not posted in a timely manner and that it was held at 4 p.m. to prevent residents from attending and voicing their concerns.

“I’m disgusted over how these people have been lied too,” Castro said. “What these people did was heartless and cruel. … to scare our community right before Christmas. … People can call the city, people can call Assemblyman Hector de La Torre’s office, state Senator Alan Lowenthal’s office and ask questions”

It was not a secret that Angeles Fields filed for an appeal, Castro said.

“The appeal, you can say it’s kind of a victory, but at the same time, it’s not, because it was a non-published decision, it was basically [won] on a technicality. The appellate court said that the LRA cannot sue itself … but one of the reasons we won the first court decision was because there was a violation of the Brown Act. The special meeting was held at 2 p.m. and was not posted on time. That is where they violated the Brown Act.”

The Superior Court agreed.

“When the appellate court says the agency could not sue itself, what the appellate court failed to realize was that the [agency] was not suing itself,” Castro said. “The agency was acting on the injunction that was filed on behalf of Joanette Guttierrez, the residents and myself to cure and correct. The court … ignored that.”

If the meeting was held at 4 p.m. this Tuesday, said Castro, “it was not because we were trying to hide anything… it was because we had already scheduled our Santa Visits with families in Lynwood. … And we needed the meeting to update council members on specific items such as the loss of this appeal because if [the city] was going to file for a reconsideration with the Court of Appeals then we needed to do that before a certain date.”