Irvine Co. Project Report Is Full of Errors, Critics Say

As the Irvine Co. celebrates the recent approval of its controversial Crystal Cove housing development, its efforts to build 1,886 homes inland at the base of the Santa Ana Mountains are encountering robust opposition, with heavy criticism of the project’s environmental impact report.

Critics of the development at the eastern edge of Orange contend the environmental impact statement is “grossly inaccurate,” with outdated and erroneous information that underestimates and ignores potential problems with polluted runoff, endangered species, traffic and other issues.

Studies cited in the report for the Santiago Hills Phase II project are years out of date, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency has requested updated studies on the potential effects on such endangered species as the Quino checkerspot butterfly and two species of birds, the least Bell’s vireo and California gnatcatcher.

In yet another complication, county and state officials are investigating reports that the company illegally bulldozed land at the site last month. The Irvine Co. says it is participating in the investigation of those claims.

A company spokesman declined to respond to other allegations about the project, saying only that the company was “in the process of reviewing these concerns.” Spokesman Rich Elbaum said the company planned to send a written response to Orange sometime this week.

Opponents Say Plan Is Too Dense for Area

Officials canceled a Planning Commission meeting on the development scheduled for Monday night at which critics were expected to turn out in force. A new meeting was set for Sept. 7.

“They’ve got a lot of repair work to do on this thing,” said project opponent Shirley Grindle of the East Orange Neighborhood Committee--a collection of resident and environmental groups that opposes the project.

“They might get this thing past officials in the city of Orange, but they won’t get it through a court, and that’s where we’re probably headed,” she said.

The proposed 1,886-home project would sit between two well-known regional parks, close to a popular horseback-riding community. The project, between Irvine and Peters Canyon regional parks, would include two new parks and land for an elementary school.

The 518-acre parcel occupies a triangular area between Jamboree and Chapman Roads and the new Eastern Toll Road. The development is part of a larger plan to eventually develop a 7,110-acre tract in unincorporated Orange County.

Opponents insist that this first phase of development is too densely populated and out of sync with the area’s rural nature. They say too that they’re galled by plans to include a 20-acre retail center.

“This part of Orange County is semirural,” opponent Marilyn Ganahl said. “To suddenly start putting the city of Irvine into East Orange is a real bone of contention.”

In response to such sentiment, Orange planners recently asked the Irvine Co. to rework several portions of its proposal, including a plan to construct three-story condominiums opposite Peters Canyon Regional Park. “Frankly, three stories is too much,” said Stanton Soo-Hoo, the city’s community development manager.

Soo-Hoo has questioned the placement of homes on a slope overlooking Irvine Regional Park on the grounds that it will ruin the view of park visitors. Soo-Hoo also has questioned the Irvine Co.’s plans for constructing a 20-acre community park south of the toll road.

“It’s kind of a remote location,” Soo-Hoo said of the planned park. “It also doesn’t lend itself to active park use. It’s mostly wetlands there.”

Critics contend that the project’s supplemental environmental impact report, prepared by BonTerra Consulting of Costa Mesa in May 2000, contains many errors and omissions, as well as inaccurate maps.

Some information in the report is based on studies done as far back as 1989, for the county’s proposed “general plan” for the area. Opponents are demanding that the study be redone before the city considers approval.

Contrary to assertions in the environmental report, they say the project would irreparably harm crucial habitat for birds and butterflies nearing extinction, and dump polluted runoff into creeks that flow into the Pacific Ocean off already troubled Newport Beach. They also contend that traffic projections are off by 20%.

A biologist and butterfly expert who was hired by opponents to evaluate the environmental report complained that maps in the report had mislabeled area vegetation--downplaying the existence of plants that could potentially offer sustenance to the endangered butterflies.

“One must wonder whether the design behind sloppy reporting, inadequate survey efforts and use of outdated vegetation maps might be toward an end in misleading the public,” wrote biologist Ken H. Osborne.

Grading Charge Under Investigation

A spokesman for the Irvine Co. said he was unable to answer specific questions regarding the report. He said any decision to rework or redo the report rested with Orange officials.

“It’s not our decision one way or the other, it’s the city’s,” Elbaum said last week.

Soo-Hoo, the city’s development manager, said it was highly unlikely that the company would be ordered back to the drawing board. Instead, planning officials would collect comments and criticism from opponents and officials, and include them before voting on a final recommendation to the council.

The Sierra Club, Orange County CoastKeeper and other coastal pollution groups say the developer makes no provision for on-site handling of runoff. Stephanie Pacheco, of the Sierra Club Orange County chapter, said the lack of a storm-water runoff system or other mitigating device would have a negative impact on two watersheds, the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek, both of which flow into the Pacific Ocean.

As for potentially illegal grading, officials said the case was still under investigation. County officials said that late last month, it was discovered that grading had been done on the site without a permit.

Irvine Co. spokesman Elbaum said a subcontractor, GeoSoils, had bulldozed a path through vegetation near Irvine Regional Park while conducting soil tests.

“They needed to clear a path so they could bring equipment in,” Elbaum said. The spokesman said that the area had been designated as one that should have been avoided and that GeoSoils was informed of this. GeoSoils could not be reached for comment late Tuesday afternoon.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Nature vs. Housing

Irvine Co.’s proposed 1,886-home development on the edge of Orange is getting complaints from environmental groups that say the area will be harmed ecologically.

Source: BonTerra Consulting