Irvine Co. Would Consider Relocating Canyon Project

The Irvine Co. said Wednesday it would consider moving its controversial Laguna Laurel residential project out of Laguna Canyon, marking a possible breakthrough in the long-running dispute over development in the environmentally sensitive area.

The Irvine Co.’s new proposal, which calls for the project to be relocated to the city of Irvine if a number of conditions are met, was greeted with optimism by some officials who have long sought to derail the 2,000-acre residential development.

Laguna Beach Mayor Robert F. Gentry, a leading opponent of Laguna Laurel, called the proposal a “breakthrough.”

“I’m excited, and I think there are some real possibilities in this,” Gentry said. “Even if this proposal itself doesn’t work, it can be the basis for other alternatives or modifications.”

The possibility of moving Laguna Laurel, however, hinges on a number of political and financial conditions, said Gary H. Hunt, the company’s senior vice president. A key condition would be the willingness of the city of Irvine to accept 3,200 new residential units, the size of the proposed project. Without committing themselves to specifics, Irvine Mayor Larry Agran and City Manager Paul Brady Jr. both said that the city would be open-minded about discussing the idea.

“I am certainly willing to consider any proposal for scaling down or relocating portions of Laguna Laurel as part of an overall program to save and gain open space for the city of Irvine, mainly Laguna Canyon,” Agran said. “The real question is whether this can be done without inflicting a burden on Irvine residents.”

Brady added that “the bottom line is how valuable to all of us is the preservation of Laguna Canyon. If both of us (Laguna Beach and Irvine) can play a role in doing that, and the developer can get a return on the investment, maybe it’s something that can work.”

But Brady cautioned that it would be “premature” to respond to the specific conditions laid down by the Irvine Co. in its proposal.

As originally proposed, Laguna Laurel would be built on about 2,000 acres in an unincorporated area at the northern end of Laguna Canyon Road, east of the city of Laguna Beach off the San Diego Freeway.

Although the site is not within the city limits of Laguna Beach and two-thirds of the acreage would be reserved as open space, Laguna Beach residents have claimed that the development would become an environmental curse for the coastal community.

The project has been under heavy attack in recent weeks, with opponents holding marches and vigils outside Irvine Co. officials’ homes and staging a massive protest march that drew more than 7,000 people up Laguna Canyon Road.

Laguna Beach residents further contended that the Laguna Laurel development would destroy the rustic quality of Laguna Canyon and worsen traffic.

Before its latest proposal, the Irvine Co. had made no public suggestion that it would consider any site other than the acreage at the mouth of Laguna Canyon.

In a letter dated Wednesday, Irvine Co. vice president Hunt wrote Gentry about the possible “Irvine alternative” to building in Laguna Canyon.

” . . . If the City of Irvine would seriously entertain your proposal that it accept the residential and commercial components of this project . . . we believe it is an idea worth exploring,” Hunt wrote.

Gentry confirmed that in private talks with Irvine Co. executives, Laguna Beach officials had proposed moving the project “farther out into the canyon” and possibly to Irvine.

Hunt said there were four conditions necessary for the “Irvine alternative” to proceed:

- That the city of Irvine, within the next 45 days, “formally agree . . . to the concept that it will identify and allow to be built a planned residential community consisting of 3,200 residential units on up to 400 acres of Irvine Co. land in the city limits. . . .”

- That “the transferred project would be built on a site acceptable to us and not currently zoned or identified for development.”

- That the city of Irvine agree “to a processing schedule which would assure final project approval within 16 months. . . .”

- That the city of Laguna Beach “would be responsible for all costs associated with the planning, filing and subsequent processing of the project. . . .”

Gentry said he did not know how much expense Laguna Beach would incur under Hunt’s proposal. But he said the city would readily consider paying for some of the processing costs in exchange for moving Laguna Laurel out of the canyon.

“The city will do what is fair and just to provide for the possibility of a transfer,” Gentry said. “Our city is not just saying ‘not in my back yard.’ We’re saying, ‘let’s work together to solve this problem so that everyone can win.’ ”

Agran added that Irvine “has always been concerned about the Laguna Laurel project because of its adverse impact on the city as well as because of its devastation to Laguna Canyon. . . . I think what has happened here is that the city of Laguna Beach and the Irvine Co. have worked in good faith to develop at least the outlines of a proposal for more general consideration, and I think it is almost a duty on our part to give consideration to what they worked out.”

He said he hoped that Irvine and Laguna Beach could schedule a meeting “within a week” to discuss the proposal.

The new proposal was discussed in a meeting Wednesday between officials of the Irvine Co. and Laguna Beach, the third time that the two sides have met since an environmental impact report was issued in the fall. As a result of an earlier meeting, Irvine Co. officials offered to sell Laguna Beach about 270 acres of the project for $38 million in return for the city’s acceptance of the rest of the development and for the city’s support of the proposed San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, a tollway that would cut through Laguna Canyon.

The tollway, like Laguna Laurel, has been strongly opposed by Laguna Beach officials because of its possible impact on the canyon.

The Laguna Beach City Council rejected the offer and countered that it would purchase the acreage for $30 million if the Irvine Co. would move the project closer to Irvine, Gentry said.

Irvine City Manager Brady said Wednesday that the mayors of Irvine and Laguna Beach would meet “as quickly as possible-- within days” to discuss the Irvine Co.’s proposal. He said the earliest that the Irvine City Council could consider the proposal would be at a meeting on Dec. 12.

“We have to sit down with our neighbors in Laguna Beach,” Brady said. “To find 400 acres not already committed in Irvine is something we have to look at. It has to be a win-win situation.”

Gentry said he thought a key ingredient of arranging any swap with Irvine would involve open space. He said Irvine might consider annexing the Laguna Laurel project site area and then setting it aside as open space.

“The basic decision for Irvine is to trade open space,” Gentry said. “Is it of benefit to them to have some land in the canyon, closer to the ocean? I would think they would annex the canyon.”

Harry Huggins, a Laguna Canyon Conservancy member and executive director of the Nov. 11 anti-Laguna Laurel protest march, said Wednesday that he was “pleasantly impressed” by the Irvine Co.’s proposal. But he added, “I hope it is sincere, and not just a tactic or a delay.”