Still Waiting for Some Answers to Housing Questions in Irvine

I must respond to your editorial "A Bad Time to Change Housing Goals--Affordable Unit Concept Could Suffer Under New Action By Irvine City Council" (Nov. 18).

First, I couldn't agree with you more; the 3,700 unit Westpark II (Village 38) must not be developed without its fair share of affordable housing units.

I recently testified on behalf of Irvine Tomorrow (a citizen group concerned with the quality of life in Irvine) before the Irvine City Council expressing seven major concerns Irvine Tomorrow has about Village 38.

Affordable housing was addressed as well as six other areas. Those areas are: the electromagnetic radiation from the high-voltage lines in the development; sound attenuation needed due to the helicopter flight patterns; the need for alternative transportation due to the increased number of car trips the development will generate; the sinking funds needed to offset unanticipated future costs in connection with additional burdens on the city infrastructure (these costs would be borne by the existing residents); schools (although there are two school sites, there is no assurance that they will be built) and institutional zoning because there currently is none for Village 38, and without this zoning, the development will fail to serve its own institutional needs.

With this many questions and problems in the development of Village 38, Irvine Tomorrow will continue to ask the City Council the simple question: "Why now? Why is the current City Council in such a hurry to allow the Irvine Co. to rush through a development with these potential problems?"

MARILYN VASSOS, Secretary, Irvine Tomorrow

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World