Threat to Laguna Canyon Funding Downplayed : Greenbelt: The proposed $10-million county ante toward the Laguna Laurel plan and city’s opposition to a county-favored tollway could rock the boat.

Laguna Beach city officials Tuesday downplayed a threat by Supervisor Thomas F. Riley to block a $10-million contribution to help purchase 2,150 acres of Laguna Canyon if the city sues to halt the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor.

But they conceded that Riley’s comments concerning the tollway--long opposed by the city because of environmental concerns--threatened to upset the city’s campaign for a $20-million bond measure on the Nov. 6 ballot.

That bond measure and the expected $10-million donation from the county are key elements in the city’s bid to purchase the Laguna Laurel tract for $78 million from the Irvine Co.

Riley’s remarks that he may try to withhold the $10-million county donation came after he became concerned that Laguna Beach officials might still try to fight the tollway project even if they acquired Laguna Laurel.

He said that while the city had the right to oppose the toll road by challenging the environmental impact report, comments by Mayor Lida Lenney indicated that the city might sue the county to block construction.

“I do not think the constituents in Orange County would be very happy about the county giving money to a community that later sues the county,” Riley said. “I support enthusiastically the idea of Laguna Laurel, but I am also committed to the fact that the corridor has to go through.”

Riley’s district includes the canyon area, and he has long been at odds with Laguna Beach officials over the need for a new tollway to cut through the canyon to relieve congestion on the San Diego and Santa Ana freeways.

Riley added that while he could not prevent environmentalists from filing a lawsuit to stop the toll road, he did not think it would be right for Laguna Beach to sue the county.

“We are surprised and concerned,” Michael Phillips, executive director of two environmental groups involved in the land purchase negotiations, said of Riley’s comments.

Lenney said Tuesday that she has not threatened a lawsuit and that the city has no plans at this time to take the county to court. The mayor said the city has only hired a consultant to advise it on the tollway’s environmental impact report.

However, Lenney said it was unlikely that the city could promise before the Nov. 6 election not to sue in exchange for the county’s $10 million.

“We have a new council that’s going to be seated in December and that council will have a say on what the city does. There’s no way that I, as one of five members of the City Council, can say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ about this,” Lenney said.

All parties involved in the negotiations to buy the land and block the proposed 3,200-unit development by the Irvine Co.--including the city and county--had agreed that the future of the tollway would be considered as a separate issue.

And while the City Council is still officially on record as opposing the tollway--it would be built along the southern edge of the Laguna Laurel site--City Councilman Robert F. Gentry has hinted that the city would consider compromising if the bond proposal receives the required two-thirds majority.

Environmentalists said they did not recall the county attaching any conditions to its tentative approval in September of the $10-million donation, but Riley said he made that stipulation several months ago to Lenney and Gentry during a private meeting with Irvine Co. Chairman Donald L. Bren. He added that because the county’s approval is tentative, both sides are not expected to negotiate the terms of the county’s contribution until after the election.

While county supervisors traditionally defer to one another on special projects in a member’s district, it is not known whether Riley’s threat to withhold the money would be sustained by the full board given the widespread sentiment in favor of saving the canyon from development.

The proposed purchase of the $30.2-million development agreem related to the corridor.

“We understood that was a commitment to the county that the (Irvine) company was going to honor,” bond campaign manager Paul Freeman said. “We also understood they (the supervisors) were interested in contributing to the purchase of the land independent of the corridor issue.”

In an apparent effort to downplay the threatened loss of county funds, which are scheduled to be dispersed in $2-million installments over a five-year period, Freeman said the city had time to come up with another revenue source before the first payment is due to the Irvine Co. next June.

Meanwhile, officials representing the city, county, the state parks department and environmental groups met Tuesday in a brainstorming session with land conservation and bond consultants to explore open space revenue sources.

Members attending the meeting convened by state Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) zeroed in on one proposal to create a benefits assessment district for the preservation of open space countywide, with every property owner in the county being assessed a flat fee. A similar proposal was approved last year by the state Legislature for Riverside County.