Huge Project for Orange Leaves Bruises : Development: Massive Irvine Co. plan for eastern outskirts of town appears unstoppable, but opponents refuse to go quietly. The issue has pitted neighbor against neighbor, residents against officials.

After 17 days of trying to get signatures on a referendum petition, Dorothy Hudecek said that walking neighborhoods and knocking on doors had made her hands hurt, her feet sore and her whole body tired. But she wouldn’t give up.

A volunteer for CAIR--the Concerned Active and Interested Residents coalition--Hudecek had become frustrated with the Orange City Council for what she described as “giving in” to the Irvine Co., one of the county’s most powerful developers. In December, the company sought and received council approval for its mammoth, 12,300-home proposed development on the city’s unincorporated eastern fringe that one day Orange officials expect to annex.

“I know it doesn’t look good for us, but at least we tried,” Hudecek said, after learning Thursday that the coalition’s drive to place the development issue on the June ballot failed by fewer than 150 signatures. “We can still file a lawsuit or attempt another petition drive. It’s certainly far from over.”

Hudecek and other opponents have vowed to continue fighting the proposal when the Irvine Co. seeks City Council approval of its specific site plan for the area later this year.

In a city known for its tree-lined streets, harmonious politics and quaint downtown with its traffic circle, the referendum drive has ignited emotions, pitting neighbors against neighbors and residents against city officials.

The east Orange project and a controversial endorsement for the planned community by a local homeowner organization has triggered shouting matches, personal threats and the use of tactics such as videotaping referendum organizers by proponents of the Irvine Co.’s proposal.

At stake is a massive 7,100-acre development by the Irvine Co. that could dramatically alter the size, scope and character of Orange. Situated in the hills east of the city limits near Irvine Lake, the development could push the city’s population to 150,000 residents by the year 2010.

Plans include a hotel, civic center, major recreational facilities, and industrial development that could bring 25,000 new jobs to the area. Moreover, the entire development could generate as much as $200 million a year in revenue for the city.

As planning for the project intensified, a special committee was created to help shape the nature of the development. Among its members were a City Council member, city planners, public school officials, Irvine Co. representatives and others.

“I felt the city did a very good and thorough job throughout the planning process and public hearings,” said Mayor Don E. Smith, referring to nearly 3 1/2 years of meetings with Irvine Co. officials. “We had hundreds of committee meetings and I think we gained a lot from what was initially proposed.”

Smith said it was in the city’s best interest to be involved early on in the planning.

“We wanted to have our input on traffic, density and other factors,” Smith said. “So I think it was a proper process for the city to work on this for more than three years. . . . It’s awful hard to work out a plan in just a few meetings with the City Council. The public was kept abreast of all our meetings and they had numerous opportunities to voice opinion.”

But critics such as Sherry Meddick, a resident of nearby Silverado Canyon, argued that having the council and a developer involved in the planning process as a “joint effort” raises too many suspicions about the council’s impartiality. For example, she questioned the council’s Dec. 19 approval of a General Plan amendment on the development.

“Here we had a City Council that had helped formulate significant portions of a major, major development and then they voted on it. Of course, they’re going to approve it. It’s only common nature to agree with something you yourself proposed,” said Meddick, who contends residents of Silverado, Modjeska and even Trabuco canyons east of the proposed project will be impacted by the growth and traffic on the edge of the county’s dwindling backcountry.

Officials of the Irvine Co. declined to comment about the controversy stirred by the referendum attempt or their project beyond the specifics of the proposed development.

After the council approved the project, opponents decided to take their case to the voters in the form of a referendum.

But efforts to gather 5,408 signatures in 30 days was hampered by rainy weather and two holidays, New Year’s Day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Nonetheless, organizers managed to send a mailer with petitions to 15,000 residents, and marshaled enough volunteers to get 5,237 signatures.

The signature-gathering drive was marked by several heated exchanges, stemming from charges that the effort was engineered by “outsiders,” such as Meddick, who do not live in the city.

The allegations were leveled by, among others, Robert Walters and Theodore Botens, members of the Rural Orange Coordinating Council, an umbrella organization made up of representatives from 10 homeowner groups in the Orange Park Acres area. The group has endorsed the Irvine Co. development.

Walters’ preoccupation with the involvement of outsiders in the referendum attempt was so strong that he even videotaped referendum organizers at meetings in W.O. Hart Park.

“I still feel that the referendum was an idea that sprang from individuals outside of Orange,” Walters said. “I don’t really think that these people care about Orange.”

One outsider in the fray who attracted attention--and criticism--was Allan Beek of Newport Beach. Beek is a familiar foe of the Irvine Co., having successfully battled the firm over past attempts to expand Newport Center, which includes upscale Fashion Island.

“The first time we fought the Irvine Co. was when we initiated a petition drive against the company’s expansion plans,” he recalled. “We won and the company withdrew its plans in the early 1980s.”

A second attempt to expand Fashion Island in 1985 was again defeated by voters, thanks in part to Beek’s aggressive opposition.

Opponents of the east Orange project say the involvement of Meddick, Beek and others is important because the development’s impact will stretch well beyond the Orange city limits.

Beek acknowledged his role in the referendum movement, including efforts to raise nearly $8,000 to pay petition printing and mailing costs.

Proponents of the east Orange project, such as Mara Brandman, accused CAIR organizers of trying to embarrass the City Council as well as stir up opposition to the Eastern Transportation Corridor, a major toll road that will be built through the development.

“I have no doubt that when people realize that they have a hidden agenda,” said Brandman, referring to referendum proponents, “they will find out about this project and discover that it was 10 or 12 people who worked their hearts out and helped the community. It’s terrible to use a community’s hard-fought efforts and then have someone come in and say you didn’t do it right.”

For Walters, Botens and Brandman, the debate is simple. All three are protective of an agreement they helped negotiate with the Irvine Co. on behalf of the homeowner’s council in the Orange Park Acres. The agreement helped shape the project by eliminating the construction of 1,000 homes in an area known as East Bowl, moving a proposed industrial development away from Orange Park Acres, adding several new parks and receiving pledges to establish one of the most extensive systems of horse-riding trails in the United States.

A majority of the homeowner group presidents, who belong to the coordinating council chaired by Botens, supported the nine-point agreement Botens helped secure.

“I do not like the plan and if we could control things, I would support no development at all,” said Bob Bennyhoff, a resident of Orange Park Acres, whose wife publishes a community newspaper. “However, the only way to stop the plan is to raise $750 million and buy the land. Short of that, we need to try and make changes during the planning process.”

Dr. Gregory F. Mondini, a Garden Grove physician, represents 37 homeowners who live along a scenic ridgeline overlooking the proposed development area. He recalled moving to the area several years ago and coveting his pristine view of the rolling countryside.

“We like the open-space feel, but we’ve conceded that there’s no way we’re going to stop this development, short of a revolution. It won’t destroy what we have, but we can maintain what we do have,” Mondini said.

For Botens, a horse owner, the promise of riding trails was a must for Orange Park Acres, a relatively upscale community dotted with horse stables, tennis courts and swimming pools. The area is crisscrossed with riding trails.

“It’s part of the reason I got involved in planning the agreement,” he explained. “We won more than 20 miles of hiking and riding trails in the draft plan. We were not going to be starved out like any of the other equestrian communities and centers in Orange County.”

“If we had not gotten involved, there would have been no citizen input from anybody,” Botens continued, “because people living on the west side of town are not going to travel all the way across town to meet with the Irvine Co. We toured the site, we visited other Irvine Co. developments, (and) saw their industrial areas. That’s what I think is important here, that people living out here in east Orange have something to say.”

Botens discounted claims that the east Orange project will generate “terrible” traffic problems.

“And we’re going to have the Eastern Transportation Corridor and extensions of other roads to handle the traffic,” he said.

Botens said he respects the activism of CAIR and its volunteers, but he became incensed at their flyers circulated during the referendum campaign that warned the proposed development would “split the city,” creating a west-versus-east mentality.

But when Botens described referendum organizers as “anti-growth,” CAIR leader Hudecek said, she grew angry.

“I resent people like Ted Botens describing me as anti-growth,” Hudecek said, disrupting a recent news conference called by Botens. “I’m not anti-growth, and petition organizers are not anti-growth. We’re residents concerned about added traffic congestion that this development will bring.”

The battle lines clearly emerged at that news conference.

In a remark to one of the referendum organizers, Walters said: “You better watch out. We know who you are and what you’re doing. We’re watching you.”

The organizer turned, looked Walters in the eye and answered, “Good. I’m glad.”

* BOTTOM LINE

Is the Irvine Co.’s chairman the wealthiest man in the U.S.? A1