Is O.C. parks debate a power play?

When Orange County officials first reviewed a plan by the Irvine Co. to drain runoff from its massive Santiago Hills housing development into county-owned Irvine Regional Park, they were deeply troubled.

Parks administrators thought the arrangement amounted to a “gift of public funds” because it granted the development firm exclusive use of public property that would benefit its private 1,750-home development, according to documents and correspondence provided to The Times. At a minimum, they reasoned, the Irvine Co. should pay for the land, and they drafted a letter to the company saying as much in April 2005.

But after a series of hand-written changes by senior directors at the county’s Resources and Development Management Department, the county’s position changed diametrically.

A large “X” was drawn through the paragraph demanding the company provide “overriding public benefits” in exchange for the land. The final version said the county found the drainage system was in the public interest and made no mention of compensation. Supervisors unanimously gave final approval earlier this year, over the objections of environmentalists, homeowners and some of the county’s staff.

Now, that episode is serving as a backdrop to a debate over a plan for future management of the county’s parks.

One option calls for turning over management of some of the county’s parkland to a private trust established by Irvine Co. Chairman Donald L. Bren and overseen by executives of the development firm.

In August, the county’s Harbors, Beaches & Parks Commission narrowly voted against endorsing the parks plan, in part because it did not grant the parks agency autonomy from the more business-friendly resources department. The resources department oversees county facilities and ultimately signed off on the drainage deal. Supervisors are scheduled to take up the parks management proposal today.

The debate comes at a critical time for Orange County’s park system, which has suffered in recent years as officials diverted nearly $150 million from parks in the last decade to cover other costs, such as the county’s bankruptcy debt. In 2005, an Orange County Grand Jury report found the park system underfunded and understaffed, and recommended it be afforded higher status in the county bureaucracy.

More than anyone else, the Irvine Co. and Bren are the architects of the image of modern Orange County, with its meticulously planned communities and tidy, tree-lined streets.

To the Santiago Hills drainage plan’s opponents, the county’s acquiescence demonstrates that the firm wields quiet but powerful influence over county affairs.

“I don’t think the public interest was served here,” said Kevin Thomas, the county’s former parks director who was a critic of the proposal and was fired last year.

“I was not an obstructionist. I did not object to the development. I believed the Irvine Co. had every right to develop the property,” he said. “I just didn’t believe it had the right to put something on the backs of the public without paying for it.”

County officials defend their handling of the matter. Bryan Speegle, head of the Resources and Development Management Department, said the county had never required developers to compensate the county for the use of public property to handle runoff, and that county lawyers rejected the notion that it was a gift of public assets.

Supervisor Bill Campbell, whose district includes the project and the park, said the Irvine Co. had rights under a 110-year-old land deed that could have allowed it to build its drainage system through more popular areas of the park. Other officials note the final proposal was approved by state and federal wildlife officials, and that Orange’s approval of the project has been upheld thus far by the courts despite a legal challenge.

For its part, the Irvine Co. said its project did not constitute a taking of public land and was a product of compromises after much community discussion. The company also notes the environmental group Coastkeepers endorsed the ultimate plan.

“We are not taking public land,” said John Christensen, an Irvine Co. vice president.

The 114-acre parcel where the drainage facility is planned was bought by the county in 1972 -- from the Irvine Co. -- for nearly $400,000. Roughly 30 years later, the company decided it wanted some of it back.

As the developer pursued approval from Orange to build the second phase of Santiago Hills, it filed a runoff management plan with the county. Almost immediately, its central premise -- to divert runoff from the development into the county park -- raised hackles in the bureaucracy.

The first draft would have used acreage thick with California coastal sage-scrub, the habitat of the federally threatened California gnatcatcher, according to an Aug. 26, 2004, memo from Thomas. Five gnatcatchers had been observed there just weeks earlier. There were also concerns that heavy rains could wash out park trails.

In a March 4, 2005, memo, Cathy Nowak, a parks official, noted the company had accepted some changes to minimize effects on the natural habitat and the views of neighboring homeowners, but that it was resisting paying for the property.

Then came the series of letters in which the county first insisted it receive compensation for the land, only to ultimately approve the proposal without that condition. Speegle said he did not know who edited the letters, but acknowledged he signed the final version.

Earlier drafts also said the proposal would have to be vetted through public hearings, but the final one said no hearings were necessary. That rankled nearby homeowners, who said they never even knew of the plan until it was practically a done deal.

“We had no notice whatsoever of anything,” said Cynthia Burns, the president of the Hillsdale Community Assn., which represents homeowners in a development where several views look out directly onto the park where the drainage facility will be built.

Speegle said the parks officials were overruled because their sentiments were not consistent with the law or the county’s historical practice.

Orange gave final approval to the development plans in November 2005, but the Irvine Co. still needed a series of approvals from the county after that.

As the process dragged on, documents show, county resource managers repeatedly complained they were not receiving proper documentation from the company for its plans.

They also said the company had agreed to changes in the drainage plan, only to submit new designs that did not reflect the compromises. In one Feb. 28, 2006, exchange, a county engineering specialist complained to an Irvine Co. consultant that the county had not received approved tract and topography maps it requested, only to be told that Speegle -- her ultimate boss -- had told the company it didn’t have to comply with the request.

In an interview, Speegle acknowledged he may have done that, but only because Orange had agreed to assume responsibility for the facility, thus relieving the county of oversight for it.

As the Irvine Co. sought final county approval of its permit and plans, county parks officials continued to press for compensation for the land. If the shoe was on the other foot, Thomas said he asked Irvine Co. officials during a meeting in the fall of 2006, would the company ever give land to the county for free?

Within seconds, according to Thomas’ account, the executives, and Speegle, stood and left the room, ending the meeting. He was fired in December and believes the dispute played a role in his dismissal. Speegle says he does not recall the meeting or the comment and declined to comment, citing personnel matters.

The final plans, approved in March, moved the drainage facility and shrank its size to about 1 1/3 acres, to address concerns about the gnatcatcher habitat, and added trees and shrubbery to cover fencing and piping from neighbors’ views.

The runoff from the development would empty into the park through a 6 1/2 -foot-wide pipe.

christian.berthelsen@ latimes.com