Longtime Irvine Coast Antagonists Hail Agreement

At a time when the county is split over the issue of growth, something very strange happened at a Board of Supervisors meeting last week.

A development agreement protecting the future of a huge Irvine Co. project on one of the most strikingly beautiful stretches of the California coast, just north of Laguna Beach, was before the supervisors.

And the coalition of environmentalists that fought the project bitterly for more than a decade--an organization as politically tough as any in the state--showed up to ask the board to approve it.

“The plan . . . reflects an acceptable balance of land uses,” the board was told by San Francisco lawyer Terry Watt, speaking on behalf of the coalition. “The development agreement before you . . . is the next logical step.”

Long, Stormy Courtship

That unusual scene, the result of a long and sometimes stormy courtship, has historic proportions among county planners.

It was 24 years ago--in 1964--that the Irvine Co. first proposed a development plan for the Irvine Coast, now considered to be the county’s largest piece of vacant coastal land. In the generation since, there have been four different proposals. One was dropped before it reached government levels; one was rejected by the California Coastal Commission; one was stalled in court; but the fourth proposal, approved by the supervisors as part of a development agreement last week, has been hailed as unique because it was designed in face-to-face negotiations with foes of the earlier plans.

The original plan included more than 21,000 homes and two 10-story office towers; the project described in the development agreement approved last week contains about 2,600 homes and five hotels. But the greatest trophy for the project’s opponents is that 76% of the site’s nearly 10,000 acres will remain untouched.

“There is going to be a very large piece of land out there--with fantastic views . . . bigger than Griffith Park--that is going to be available to the public for the first time,” said Fern Pirkle, president of Friends of the Irvine Coast, the leading group involved in the coalition that fought the project. “What’s not to be happy about in that?”

“I think they think we won, and we think they won,” said Jean Watt, mother of Terry Watt and founder of Stop Polluting Our Newport, another of the groups in the coalition. “Now that’s a compromise.”

Carol Hoffman, a senior director of the Irvine Co., said: “I think more and more, developers are seeing how to include the community up front. I think we are the best example in the state.”

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, who has steered this project through the Board of Supervisors three times since 1976, said: “Certainly in my 14 years I have never seen such an effort where every body in the public and private sector cooperated so much. . . . I don’t see any negatives.”

Outside of the coalition, however, there are still misgivings among some slow-growth activists about the Irvine Coast agreement. They do not object to the project itself, as negotiated by the coalition, but are concerned about constitutional questions raised by all development agreements.

These foes said the Irvine Coast agreement, which would protect the project from land-use changes for 20 years, is not proper because, like all development agreements, it would take decision-making authority away from future elected officials.

There are also a few people who are still trying to prevent any development on the property and others who particularly want to protect Laguna Canyon Road, which borders the land affected by the agreement.

But Laguna Greenbelt Inc., which is a party to lawsuits against six other development agreements, is a member of the coalition and has agreed not to oppose the Irvine Coast plan in court. “I would consider that going back on our word,” said Elizabeth Brown, president of the group.

The Irvine Coast project site is a 2.5-mile gap along Coast Highway between the homes of Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach. The best-known landmark in the area is probably the small, yellow shack on the southern edge of the site that sells date shakes and sandwiches packed with avocado and sprouts.

On the ocean side of the highway is a bluff covered with brush that drops to a rocky cove and a sandy beach. On the opposite side is a rolling, grassy hill bordered by a barbed-wire fence. The beach is so rocky and the surf so rough that signs warn against swimming or even wading. But the rocks also make the cove an excellent area for tide pools.

The beauty of the area is also reflected in the names given to its natural formations--names like Pelican Point, Crystal Cove and Reef Point. And in the hills there is Buck Gully, along with Muddy Canyon and Emerald Canyon.

For years, the canyons northeast of the highway have been sealed off to the public behind barbed wire and no-trespassing signs. But as they are turned into parks, a network of hiking trails will be created, covering more than 6,000 acres of contiguous and hilly open space.

1,600 Acres to Be Private

The state and the county will be responsible for maintaining almost 3,000 acres each. The tract’s remaining 1,600 acres will be private.

The coalition opposed to the project at first sought to prevent any development on the property. When the coalition formally organized in 1976, the initial aim was to persuade Congress and the state to buy the property and preserve it as parkland.

In 1979, under Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., the state made the largest single state park purchase in its history--almost $34 million for about 2,300 acres owned by the Irvine Co. That land became Crystal Cove State Park. It includes all the land along the Irvine Coast between Coast Highway and the ocean.

Friends of the Irvine Coast also turned to the federal government, where Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) was enlisted to help steer a bill through Congress that would have made the rest of the Irvine Coast federal parkland.

After months of lobbying, the bill’s chances looked good. The idea was adopted by the House just weeks before the 1980 presidential election. But then-Sen. S.I. Hayakawa (R-Calif.) stalled it in the Senate.

Once the Reagan administration was in office, Friends of the Irvine Coast’s Pirkle said the money and the previous congressional support for the federal park seemed to dry up.

“When we started out, the main thing was to preserve all of the open space that we could,” said Pirkle, an early sponsor of the county’s slow-growth initiative on the June ballot. “We came quite close.”

After 1980, the coalition began to concede that some development was likely on the property. “There’s really only so much we can do when somebody else owns the land,” Pirkle said.

In 1981, the Irvine Co. produced its third proposal for construction on the site and received approvals from the county and the California Coastal Commission.

Letter Campaign Begun

Friends of the Irvine Coast responded with a huge letter campaign to recruit new members and raise money. Eventually, the group boasted a membership of 2,000 and raised enough money to pay for a lawsuit against the plan, as well as an appeal.

But before the appeal could be heard, there was a change at the Irvine Co. that eventually led to the final accord. Donald L. Bren assumed the helm of the corporation; a short time later there were orders to drop the plan that had prompted the lawsuit.

“(Irvine Co. officials) contacted us and said, ‘We think you would be interested in our revised plans,’ ” Pirkle said. “I’m sure this was a very new concept to them.”

Some say the company’s change in strategy was a result of a more enlightened management approach that truly sought a project that would be best for the community. Some say negotiating the project with hostile opponents was purely a business decision--the only way for the Irvine Co. to get what it wanted.

“I do think they (Irvine Co. officials) deserve credit because there are others who don’t do this,” Pirkle said. “But if they had proceeded (without negotiating) there would have been a lot of barriers.”

Jean Watt said the company was “in a mode to finally get a plan that could be agreed to. I don’t feel the Irvine Co. gave up any development or economic benefit for what they’re getting now.”

Hoffman, from the Irvine Co., said a combination of factors was involved in the company’s decision to negotiate, including business considerations and a change in the company’s philosophy.

The Goal: No Challenge

“We wanted to have a plan that not only would be approved but would not be challenged,” she said. “It’s a recognition of the concerns and a more effective way of proceeding to obtain a plan that is realistic and could be built.”

In late 1986, the company and the environmentalists sat down for tough, face-to-face talks that lasted about six months.

“We had our showdowns and our angry words and our fists on the table,” Terry Watt said. “But I think, for the most part, they were very amicable exchanges.”

Hoffman also remembered the thoroughness of the environmentalists in the talks: “They reviewed every piece of paper, every map. We spent hours arguing over words, just words.”

The talks resulted in the company reducing the height of the hotels, moving most of the housing off the hillside facing the ocean and moving the hotels farther from the highway.

In Pirkle’s mind, that process produced the best possible compromise under the circumstances.

“I don’t think there is anybody who wouldn’t say we wish there weren’t so many hotel rooms,” she said. “You really have to remind yourself what it could have been to feel that what we have is vastly better.”

IRVINE COAST DEVELOPMENT Size: 9,432 acres Open space: 7,234 acres (76%) Hotels: 5 (2,150 rooms) Residential: 2,600 homes The Irvine Co. will pay for public improvements worth $64.7 million that are required under the Local Coastal Plan, as approved by the Coastal Commission to accommodate the project. The company will also pay for $22.3 million in public improvements under a development agreement approved last week by the supervisors. Road improvements required under Local Coastal Plan approved by the Coastal Commission: * $45 million, Pelican Hill Road. * $8.8 million, San Joaquin Hills Road extension to Pelican Hill Road. * $12.9-million commitment to widen Coast Highway. Road improvements required under development agreement: * $3 million, San Joaquin Hills Road extension to Pelican Hill Road. * $8.5 million, San Joaquin Hills Road extension to MacArthur Boulevard. * Land to be dedicated for San Joaquin Hills Corridor right-of-way. * $2.2 million, San Joaquin Hills Corridor. * $6.2 million, South County 1990 Action Plan. Community contributions required under development agreement: * $340,000 contribution to a sheriff’s substation. * $1.7 million for building a fire station. * $420,000 contribution to a library. * $50,000 contribution to a child-care facility. History: * 1964: First plan submitted to county Planning Commission. It included 21,000 homes and 200,000 square feet of office space. * 1976: Board of Supervisors approves second plan, but it is rejected by the Coastal Commission. * 1981: Supervisors and Coastal Commission approve third plan, but it is challenged in court by Friends of the Irvine Coast. * 1987: Supervisors and the Coastal Commission approve the current Irvine Coast plan, which has the support of Friends of the Irvine Coast.

Source: Irvine Co. EVOLUTION OF THE IRVINE COAST PLAN

The plan passed by the Board of Supervisors and the California Coastal Commission in 1981 (top map) included about 2,600 homes and two office towers, much of it covering the hills facing the ocean. In the version recently adopted by the supervisors (bottom map), most of the 2,600 homes have been moved behind the hills’ ridgeline and the office towers have been replaced by five luxury hotels, also set back from Coast Highway.