Irvine Co. Tells Housing Plans for Gypsum Canyon Jail Site

The Irvine Co. is pursuing plans for a huge housing development in Gypsum Canyon, despite a pending lawsuit over the county’s intention to build a jail there.

The plans set up a race between the Irvine Co. and the county for the canyon, the preferred site for a county jail and a possible location for a new landfill, said Michael Ruane, director of planning for the county Environmental Management Agency.

“It really is an issue of whether the development occurs ahead of the county acquiring the property,” Ruane said.

Irvine Co. officials discussed the 3,100-acre project, called Anaheim Canyon, during a meeting this month with city planners for Anaheim, which would annex the land under the proposal, said Dawn McCormick, director of corporate communications for the Irvine Co.

Formal plans are to be filed in November for the planned development, McCormick said. The Irvine Co. declined to release details of the project until then.

Several factors influenced the Irvine Co. decision to proceed with the Anaheim Canyon project, most notably a proposal by the owners of neighboring Coal Canyon to build a housing development there, McCormick said.

The Coal Canyon Co. also wanted to annex about 400 acres of Gypsum Canyon for the project, which was not acceptable to the Irvine Co., Ruane said.

The designation of Gypsum Canyon as the top choice for a new county jail also motivated the Irvine Co. to act, McCormick said, as did the possibility that a landfill would be located in the canyon.

“All of those issues . . . coming together made it timely for us to take a look at our landholdings and what might be developed there,” McCormick said.

Gypsum Canyon is unincorporated land but is within Anaheim’s “sphere of influence,” meaning the city is “pre-approved” to annex the 3,300-acre canyon, said Greg Hastings, Anaheim’s zoning division manager. Anaheim has already mapped out a general plan for the area, which Hastings said will be modified to fit the Irvine Co. project.

Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez, whose district includes Gypsum Canyon, said he thinks that the Irvine Co. is proceeding with the development to see whether the county is serious about building a jail there.

“Probably, they’d like to know what kind of planning they need to proceed with,” said Vasquez, who opposes building a jail in Gypsum Canyon.

“It is one further complication in the issue of siting a jail in Orange County. This difficulty comes about as a result of the county not having ownership” of the canyon, Vasquez said.

And Supervisor Don R. Roth, whose district includes Anaheim, noted that the county does not have $30 million to $40 million to buy the canyon.

“It’s their property,” said Roth, who also opposes the jail proposal. “They should have the right to do something with it.”

The Anaheim Hills Citizens’ Coalition, a group of residents in the Anaheim Hills area, favors residential development of Gypsum Canyon.

“Would that be better than a jail? Yes, it would,” said Patrick Pepper, chairman of the coalition. “A residential community out there would be keeping with the General Plan.”

McCormick said it is too early to say when construction will begin on the Anaheim Canyon project. The Irvine Co. must first submit a plan to Anaheim, which would pursue annexation through the Local Agency Formation Commission. A development of this magnitude will require a detailed plan and environmental impact report, Anaheim planner Hastings said.

The environmental impact report on the Gypsum Canyon jail site angered residents of Anaheim and surrounding cities, who said the county had underestimated the effect a jail would have on the area.

On Sept. 29, Anaheim, Yorba Linda and Corona sued the county over the report, which said the 6,720-bed jail would have a minimal effect on traffic and crime.

Environmentalists have also complained that construction in Gypsum Canyon would endanger rare Tecate cypress trees and harm the birds and wildlife that depend on Gypsum Canyon Creek.