Activists challenge Irvine Co. project

Paul Clinton

NEWPORT BEACH -- To halt an Irvine Co. project that would remove 670

acres of open space from Orange County, Bob Caustin did what he does

best. He filed a lawsuit.

In the suit, filed Monday in Orange County Superior Court, Caustin

challenged Irvine’s environmental review of the project.

The high-density project could defile a section of the Upper Newport

Bay watershed, Caustin alleges, by causing dangerous increases in

traffic, air pollution and energy consumption.

“The magnitude and scope of this project is numbing,” Caustin said.

“With this project, it should be clear to people they have the intention

of paving over every living thing in the watershed.”

Caustin filed the suit on behalf of Defend the Bay, which he founded.

Caustin has won a string of court victories against the Irvine Ranch

Water District to halt that agency’s practices.

Caustin’s latest suit is misdirected, Irvine Councilman Greg Smith

said. Smith and his council colleagues unanimously approved the first

phase of the environmental review of the project May 8.

“I understand what Defend the Bay is trying to do, and it’s

honorable,” Smith said. “But they’re barking up the wrong tree on this

project.”

In the suit, Caustin names a handful of defendants, including the

city, Irvine Co., Irvine Unified School District, Orange County

Transportation Authority, Southern California Edison Co. and others.

A spokesman for the Irvine Co. would not release specifics for the

project. Instead he referred questions about it and the lawsuit to

Irvine, which paid for the environmental review.

If the project is approved, the Irvine Co. would add about 5.8 million

square feet of development to the 670 acres. When added to the 4.3

million square feet already allowed by the city’s planning guidelines,

the project would balloon to 10.2 million square feet at the site.

Caustin objected to the project’s high density.

“If you just keep on packing them in, you’ll feel like you’re in Los

Angeles in a couple of years,” Caustin said. “This is more than shoulder

to shoulder. It’s nose to fanny.”

The council, also on May 8, changed the zoning at the site from

agricultural and open space to industrial, research, medical and

scientific use.

The location is bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway on the south, Jeffrey

Road on the west, Trabuco Road on the north and the closed El Toro Marine

base on the east.

The development would add about 16,000 new jobs to the area.

In a new twist in environmental legislation, Caustin included a claim

that, if granted, would require the Irvine Co. to analyze the project’s

effect on the area’s power needs.

“It has not been an area that has been pressed,” Defend the Bay

attorney Kevin Johnson said. “But we’re in times where it needs to be

pressed.”

Several state agencies have also raised questions about Irvine’s

environmental review of the project. In a Feb. 26 letter to Irvine, the

state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control cited 18 defects in the

city’s report.

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, in an Aug. 1

letter, also voiced 10 concerns about the project.

Smith said many of the questions would be answered in further

environmental review of the project in coming months.

The sloppy environmental review is an indication, Caustin said, that

Irvine isn’t sufficiently tough on the company that engineered the

145,000-person town.

“They sure fell in line with company policy on this one,” Caustin

said. “The Irvine Co. ran this up the flagpole, and the Irvine City

Council saluted it.”

Smith was offended by the comment.

“That’s really unjustified and kind of insulting,” Smith said. “We

have the toughest [development] standards in the community, and we hold

everybody accountable, including the Irvine Co.”