Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Orange Heights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge City of Orange to require new environmental review for Orange Heights project
Summary
Multiple residents and environmental groups urged the City of Orange on April 22 to require the Irvine Company to prepare a new environmental impact report for the proposed Orange Heights development, citing wildfire evacuation risk, endangered species and habitat fragmentation.
Dozens of public commenters pressed the City of Orange on April 22 to demand a fresh environmental impact review for the proposed Orange Heights housing project, saying the current review is outdated and understates fire and wildlife risks.
Casey Gallagher, a Tustin resident, asked the council to “require the Irvine Company to conduct a new environmental impact report for the Orange Heights project,” citing the site’s placement in a very high fire‑hazard zone and the 2017 Canyon Fire evacuation delays. Other speakers raised similar concerns: residents and regional conservation advocates warned that new single‑family homes in the hills would overload evacuation routes and erode remaining wildlife corridors between Irvine Regional Park and Peters Canyon Regional Park.
Environmental campaigners described litigation underway. Paul Sargent, representing an advocacy campaign, told the council the group has an outstanding lawsuit against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife over earlier mitigation for the Crotch’s bumblebee; he said the trial is slated for September 17, 2025. Community members also cited the presence of several sensitive species and argued the most recent environmental review dates to 2005 and needs updating.
Speakers described the development footprint in ecological and safety terms. Shari Dalal said the proposal would “carve up one of the last intact wildlife corridors in Orange County,” called on the council to “be the city that chose life over luxury development,” and emphasized regional species impacts such as mountain lion mortality and vehicle strikes. Other commenters focused on affordability concerns for single‑family product in a car‑dependent location and on the difficulty of meaningful public engagement in prior processes.
The council did not take immediate action on the Orange Heights project during the public‑comment period; staff and speakers said the matter remains subject to planning review and ongoing litigation. The public comment period concluded and the meeting proceeded to agenda items.
