Irvine, Laguna Soon to Tackle Canyon Plan

It was a chance conversation with an old friend at the local grocery that best drove home for Laguna Beach Mayor Lida Lenney the passions stirred by Laguna Canyon, a panoramic, serene place that a wag once remarked was “more soothing than a three-martini lunch.”

Lenney and the constituent exchanged amenities. Talk turned inevitably to the canyon. Without a flicker of frivolity in his voice, the middle-aged guidance counselor told her: “Just say the word, and I’ll lay down in front of the bulldozers if that’s what it takes to stop this thing.”

“This thing” is Laguna Laurel, a decade-old dream of the Irvine Co. and its chairman, Donald Bren, that would put 3,200 homes, including apartments and condominiums, a golf course, a school and a shopping center, along with public parks and preserved terrain, on 2,150 acres of unincorporated land near the canyon’s mouth.

And it is the virulent opposition to the project, say political observers, that has forced the Irvine Co. to rethink its plan and set the stage for unusual talks this week between city officials from Irvine and Laguna Beach on the canyon’s future.

After a decade’s debate, the Irvine Co. two weeks ago shocked opponents and supporters alike by saying it would consider moving the project out of the canyon and into neighboring Irvine--if officials from Irvine and Laguna Beach agree to a set of stringent demands on the scope, finances and review process for the development.

To some, the Irvine Co. move represents at least a hope of salvaging the unique mix of gentle slopes and rugged, severe cliffs that distinguish Laguna Canyon.

The fact that the Irvine Co. has even opened the door for such talks--an option all but precluded even a few months ago--is a positive sign, city officials say.

But to others, the move is only a clever but insincere ploy by the Irvine Co. to buffer public criticism and allow it to move ahead with Laguna Laurel as planned once the talks over the so-called “Irvine alternative” collapse.

The Irvine Co., these critics suggest, has shrewdly shifted the burden and responsibility for the project from its own corner to those of Irvine and Laguna Beach, challenging those cities to back up their proclaimed commitments to the environment.

“The ball has been in their court this whole time,” said Laguna Canyon Conservancy member John Pfeffer, “and now they’ve pushed it into someone else’s.”

The prospects for successful negotiations for the project’s relocation into some unspecified portion of Irvine appear doubtful at best, officials from both cities say.

Indeed, if the Irvine Co. stands by its demands--such as keeping the project intact at its current dimensions--Laguna Beach Mayor Lenney says bluntly: “We have a proposal that’s impossible to meet.”

And Irvine Mayor Larry Agran, taking a hard-line approach into the talks, said he will not accept the project without significant modifications in size and design, plus incentives to Irvine--such as the city’s possible annexation of the canyon.

“The notion that the city of Irvine is going to become a dumping ground for a turkey of a development is ridiculous,” Agran said in an interview.

Environmental activists, who have fought Laguna Laurel vigorously on the grounds of traffic, pollution and pure aesthetics, aren’t counting on much coming out of the talks.

“I just don’t trust (the Irvine Co.),” said Rob Ramsey, a longtime Laguna Beach resident who met with about 40 other members of the Laguna Canyon Conservancy last week to plot strategy. “This is just another smoke screen.”

So distrustful of the Irvine Co.’s motives is conservancy activist Gene Felder that he suggested that his colleagues should let the public be lulled into thinking that the Irvine relocation is practically a done deal.

That way, he told them, residents will feel so “betrayed” when the Irvine deal breaks down that even non-activists in the community will attack the Irvine Co. The resulting rage, he said, would be more compelling than any pickets or mailers, or even a canyon march last month that drew an estimated 7,500 critics of the Laguna Laurel plan.

It may be an interesting theory, but Gary Hunt isn’t buying it.

The senior vice president of the Irvine Co., a key player in past talks with public officials over Laguna Laurel, said the county’s largest landowner had no ulterior motives in floating the “Irvine alternative,” despite what critics want to think.

“We like the project right where it is, and we’ve worked diligently to develop what we believe is a very good plan,” Hunt said in an interview. “But if in the spirit of consensus the cities of Irvine and Laguna Beach can come together on a suitable alternative, then we’ll certainly consider it.”

Even a year or two ago, when Laguna Beach officials were pressing the idea of a possible Laguna Laurel relocation, the offer was not “considered seriously,” by the Irvine Co., Hunt acknowledged. “I won’t get into the reasons, but we did not view it as a viable alternative,” he said.

So what has changed since then to make the Irvine Co. at least look at the possibility?

Hunt and other Irvine Co. officials aren’t saying. “I don’t know that why what’s happening is important. The important thing is we’re trying to reach a consensus,” Hunt said.

And those interested in Laguna Laurel who are outside the company say they don’t really know the answer. As Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas F. Riley said: “Donald Bren doesn’t share his reasons for doing things with a lot of people.”

That leaves only speculation on the reasons behind the Irvine Co.’s changed strategy--and there’s been plenty of that going around in the last few weeks.

Some observers and elected officials suggest the Irvine Co. was worried about a protracted legal battle over the development with environmentalists and the city of Laguna Beach. Others say the company has been lured by the prospect of getting additional development space in Irvine. Still others point to the the recent emergence into the discussions of Sen. Alan Cranston, who is to meet Friday with Irvine Co. and Laguna Beach officials.

But the overriding consensus among public officials and political and business observers is that a growing rash of demonstrations against the project--and the negative publicity that has come with it--forced the Irvine Co.’s hand.

In recent weeks, Laguna Laurel critics have stepped up their opposition, picketing near Bren’s home, recruiting celebrities to bolster their cause and turning out in the thousands for last month’s march outside the canyon. They have drawn attention from the news media along the way, irking Irvine Co. executives who say the coverage is slanted against them.

It was in the wake of these demonstrations that the Irvine Co., which had already secured county Board of Supervisors’ approval for Laguna Laurel, got a delay in this month’s hearings before the county Planning Commission on the plan’s environmental impact and said it might consider the Irvine relocation.

One environmental activist likened the move to a football coach who, having lost the lead in the game, calls a timeout to try and regain the momentum.

And Ray Catalano, a former UC Irvine urban planning professor who was active in the Laguna Laurel debate while an Irvine council member, added: “The people of the community have finally realized what this project is all about, and the Irvine Co. is seeing the opposition they’re up against.

“The Irvine Co. has to do business with a lot of people in this area, and if they come away from this looking like the raper of Orange County, they’ll have to face the consequences,” said Catalano, who is now at UC Berkeley.

“It might be that the Irvine Co. is just saying this is such a black eye that they’re looking for a graceful way out,” he added.

Whether or not the Irvine relocation works out, concedes Art Wahl, a board member with the environmental group Laguna Greenbelt, “the Irvine Co. has certainly managed to put itself in a better light.”

City officials in Laguna Beach and Irvine say they will have to consider a host of imposing variables when they begin their discussion this week.

Among the key questions:

* Would the Irvine Co. reverse its current stance and scale down the project if it were moved to Irvine?

* Could the project’s components be spread throughout the area, rather than plunked down in their entirety in Irvine?

* Could Irvine, if it took Laguna Laurel, annex part of the canyon, which Laguna Beach had sought to do itself?

* Would federal or state monies be available to buy back part of the Irvine Co.’s canyon land?

The Irvine Co., for its part, will stay out of the talks, having already put forth its conditions for accepting the move.

“The Irvine alternative was Laguna’s idea, and it’s up to them and Irvine to work it out,” Hunt said. “It’s really in their hands.” Even if the cities can meet the company’s conditions, however, Hunt said the Irvine Co. is not ready to commit itself to a definite move to Irvine.

Some political observers suggest that the negotiations put particular pressure on Irvine Mayor Agran to make good on his commitment to open space and the environment.

But Laguna’s Mayor Lenney countered that interpretation, saying: “We’re the ones asking (Agran) for a favor. . . . He’s calling the shots as far as what goes in his city; we’re going there with our hats in our hands to ask for help.”

Laguna Laurel opponents say that, even if the Irvine relocation talks break down, they will not give up their fight; the cost, they say, is too high.

As part of its Laguna Laurel plan, the Irvine Co. has pledged to donate more than half the land--more than 1,200 acres in all--for public use. Currently, that property is virtually all private, accessible only to more daring hikers and bikers who risk a confrontation with company security guards.

Still, environmentalists say the gain of public lands is not worth the cost of having housing and commercial developments at the canyon’s pristine tip.

“It would destroy the canyon,’ said Lenney, who calls Laguna Laurel “the most significant issue that we have ever dealt with as a city.”

“It comes down to a way of life,” she said. “You can’t replace the scenic effect of that canyon--the relief to the eye and the spirit from urban life.”

Proposed Laguna Laurel Planned Community Developer: Irvine Co. Location: Unincorporated area south of Irvine, west of Leisure World, north of Laguna Beach and Crystal Cove State Park. Site: 2,150 acres Units: 3,200 Mediterranean-style houses, apartments and condominiums Amenities: a 237-acre golf course, bicycle trails, playing fields and picnic areas Open Space: 1,500 acres, including the golf course