Alternative Sites Proposed for University House : UC Irvine: Neither of the two new options is environmentally sensitive, unlike the original location, home to a rare breed of bird.

In light of new biological evidence and renewed student and faculty opposition, UC Irvine officials are for the first time proposing two alternative sites for a chancellor’s home, other than an environmentally sensitive ridge top where a rare bird breeds.

The two new sites suggested for University House are also near the southernmost edge of the 1,510-acre campus. Neither hilltop is believed to host rare or threatened species of animals or plants, unlike the original choice, a 2.5-acre ridge of coastal sage scrub where California gnatcatchers forage and one nesting pair was studied last spring.

UCI Chancellor Jack W. Peltason still thinks planned environmental mitigation measures for the bird and other wildlife are sufficient to move ahead with a $3.2-million house and entertainment center on the original site, with its commanding view of the campus, Upper Newport Bay and the ocean.

On Tuesday, however, his envoy will return to a special faculty committee on land use and ask them to weigh the merits of all three areas in light of the new gnatcatcher study. It concludes that the 13,500-square-foot house and entertainment center, combined with construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor nearby, could drive the resident pair of birds and three other neighboring pairs to local extinction.

“The main reason we’re looking at alternatives is . . . the additional (biological) information and the continuing controversy,” explained Joseph F. DiMento, UCI’s director of land use planning.

“I think he is looking to try to put the controversy behind us,” DiMento said of Peltason, who has long said University House will be a home for his successor, not for himself.

UCI is the only UC campus without a chancellor’s residence on or near the university grounds. Peltason lives about 5 miles away from campus in Newport Beach.

More than a chancellor’s residence, University House is envisioned as a central gathering place for ceremonial functions and visiting dignitaries. Officials see it as a key to building the campus’ stature in the community.

The project must be built almost entirely with private donations, and so far, the 2 1/2-year-old University House fund-raising campaign has raised less than a third of the $3.2 million needed, according to UCI officials.

Part of the difficulty has been laid to the recession, particularly within Orange County’s development industry. But Peltason himself concedes that the debate over the gnatcatcher has had an effect.

“I think the controversy makes it difficult to raise the funds and get the project done,” he said.

So while the Academic Senate subcommittee’s choice is not binding, if the members--who include biologists, administrators and student representatives--recommend one of the new sites, Peltason promised to give that serious consideration in his final decision.

What DiMento will present to the land use committee are general outlines for two alternative sites, an assessment of their biological resources and their costs.

The first alternative site includes a series of hills that are next to a proposed ecological reserve, a narrow, 62-acre corridor of sagebrush, buckwheat and cactus that is considered the most environmentally sensitive land left on campus.

The second alternative site sits to the east, on UCI’s tallest hill, which is 309 feet above sea level. Like the original site, it has a commanding view, but this one looks north and eastward, offering a vista of the Santa Ana Mountains and the valley below.

Neither site raises concerns about rare or potentially threatened flora or fauna, DiMento said. UCI biologist Timothy Bradley agreed after a walking tour last week.

“As far as we know, they don’t have any endangered species or species of particular biological concern,” said Bradley, who is chairman of the land use committee.

Either alternative would be at least $100,000 more expensive than the original, because roads would have to be extended farther, as would plumbing and utility lines, according to preliminary estimates.

There would also be a delay for additional planning and design associated with either new site, DiMento said. Much of that work has already been done for the original location. In fact, UCI officials last summer had talked about breaking ground in the spring.

Also on the agenda will be plans for the original site, along with the new data collected by UCI biologist Richard E. MacMillen and several graduate students in the spring and early summer.

DiMento said he will make no recommendation for a particular site Tuesday. Rather, he said, the chancellor wants the committee members to seriously study all three locations. And while the chancellor would like a decision from the committee as soon as possible, DiMento said he wants members to fully consider the pros and cons of each before a vote.

Bradley said the new gnatcatcher data makes a persuasive case that construction on the original site would have an adverse impact on the bird, despite the revision of the design approved by the land use committee last winter.

“As a biologist and a member of the committee, I personally would favor one of the sites where the biological impacts are not so great,” Bradley said.

Students, meanwhile, were watching the developments with interest. Elected councils for both graduate and undergraduate students have passed resolutions in the last two weeks demanding that University House be moved to a less environmentally sensitive site.

“I’m really pleased,” said Tom Dietsch, a senior majoring in ecology and member of Student Activists For the Environment (SAFE).

“They (campus administrators) seem to be coming to their senses and are considering the biological implications of building that house up there,” Dietsch said.

University House Options

For the first time in the long saga of the University House, UCI’s planned home and entertainment complex for its future chancellors, campus officials are proposing alternative sites. The current location proposed for the home is regarded by environmentalists and biologists on campus as environmentally sensitive because it is a habitat for rare birds.

Original site: Includes habitat for nesting gnatcatchers.

Alternative 1: Proposed by UCI land planners. Sits next to the proposed ecological preserve.

Alternative 2: This hilltop site is near faculty/staff housing.