Supervisors Mull Buying Laguna Laurel Land : Open space: The county will search for funds to purchase the site from the Irvine Co. With price estimates up to $110 million, the going may be difficult.

In what could be a step toward public ownership of thousands of acres of pristine canyon country, the Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously agreed to look into ways of buying the controversial Laguna Laurel development site from the Irvine Co.

“Everyone agrees that purchasing the site is an acceptable alternative to building on it,” said Tom Mathews, an aide to Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, who proposed a feasibility study. “But we are talking about a large amount of money, $50 (million) or $100 million.”

Mathews said the county would search for state bond money, grants or federal funds to buy all or part of the proposed development site.

Meanwhile, environmentalists who have waged a decadelong battle to block the controversial housing project in Laguna Canyon between the San Diego Freeway and Laguna Beach, welcomed the Board of Supervisors’ decision as a move toward preserving the environmentally sensitive Laguna Canyon.

“It’s a very important first step, and I am thrilled with the vote on the part of the supervisors,” Laguna Mayor Lida Lenney said. “It reads very positively.”

Supervisors also authorized the county staff to get an independent appraiser to help in setting a value on the property. Depending on who is quoting the figures, the value has ranged from $50 million to $110 million.

In order to raise enough money to buy the Laguna Laurel site, a ballot measure would be needed. But it would be doomed from the start unless the board scales back its demands that the Irvine Co. pay for road improvements related to the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, some observers said.

The Irvine Co. and the city of Laguna Beach, a leading opponent of the development project in Laguna Canyon, agreed last month to ask supervisors to explore the possibility of placing a measure to buy the Laguna Laurel site on the November ballot.

“It could be considered the first step in a purchasing program to put the canyon in public ownership,” Riley said.

“While we all might agree that purchase of the site is an acceptable alternative to development, I believe it is only prudent to study the feasibility of bond financing and other methods of purchase before we consider putting the issue before the voters,” he said.

During a recent meeting between Laguna Beach and Irvine Co. officials, Riley said he was asked whether he thought purchase of the site would be acceptable to the county.

“My opinion at the time, and to date, is affirmative, provided that public benefits negotiated as part of the development agreement between the county and the Irvine Co. would not be lost,” Riley said.

Those benefits include the Irvine Co.’s commitment to provide right of way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and grading for the tollway, and improvements and widening of Laguna Canyon Road.

Of the 2,100-acre site owned by the company, 1,300 acres have been dedicated open space under the development agreement signed in 1988. The actual development area, with 3,200 proposed homes and a golf course, is only about 800 acres. The rest of the land, including the pristine 550-acre Laurel Canyon, could not be developed. There are three natural lakes on the property.

The property would fit nicely into an existing network of parks, including Crystal Cove State Park, Irvine Coast Wilderness Regional Park and Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park. The parks would total nearly 16,000 acres.

Although environmentalists and the developer have been warring over the project since the early 1980s, the battle has intensified in recent months.

In November, more than 7,000 people converged on the Laguna Canyon to protest plans by the Irvine Co. to build the project. Many of the marchers came from outside the Laguna Beach area, stirring hopes among politicians that the preservation of the canyon may be of countywide concern, making a ballot measure more viable.

Some warned that the cost of the land may be too high because many of the public benefits that the Irvine Co. agreed to are in the price of the 800 acres.

“If it didn’t include all the extras and it was just to raise enough money to compensate the Irvine Co. for the land, the property would probably get down to a reasonable price,” said Carolyn Wood, president of the Laguna Canyon Conservancy. “I think they are trying to glob too much into it and it makes the property too expensive.”

Although many support the land being protected as open space, others have expressed doubts that voters in financially conservative Orange County would support a tax increase to purchase open space.