3 Business Groups Sue to Block Irvine’s Citizens’ Initiative

Three major business and land development organizations announced Thursday that they are filing suit to block a citizens’ initiative in Irvine that would require a citywide election on any new taxes or fees assessed to build new roads and freeways.

The lawsuit--an escalation in the battle over three proposed freeways in south and east Orange County--was delivered to city officials late Thursday by attorneys for the Orange County Building Industry Assn., the Industrial League of Orange County and the Irvine Chamber of Commerce, together representing nearly 1,400 business firms.

A hearing is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. today in Orange County Superior Court on the business groups’ request for a court order preventing the Irvine City Council from adopting the initiative or placing it on the ballot for voter consideration. The council is scheduled to act on the initiative Tuesday night.

City Considered Crucial

At issue is a proposed developer-fee program that would raise nearly half the costs for building the three controversial freeways --the San Joaquin Hills, Foothill and Eastern corridors--through assessments on new homes and commercial development. Because all three freeways would run through high-growth areas of Irvine and generate a substantial portion of the proposed fees, the city’s participation in the program is considered crucial.

Supporters of the ballot initiative --calling the lawsuit an “obvious attempt to subvert the integrity of the initiative process”--contend that the fee program represents an unfair assessment on future home buyers and shoppers to support freeways that most Irvine residents do not want. They said the lawsuit represents a blatant attempt on the part of developers to interfere with the election process.

John Erskine, executive director of the Building Industry Assn., said the organizations are challenging the ballot initiative because they believe state law gives the City Council, and not the public at large, the authority to decide on new road and freeway fees.

Though it might be argued that the voters should at least have a chance to express their views on the issue, the California Supreme Court has held that initiatives are “not a public opinion poll” and should not be submitted to the voters if they are illegal, Erskine said. “I guess, simply stated, we feel that the people of Irvine are entitled to know the validity of the proposed ordinance before they vote on it.”

Builders and other business leaders are also concerned about the possibility of allowing one city to stand in the way of a regional transportation improvement program, and the potential for setting a precedent that would make other benefit assessments difficult to implement, Erskine said.

“Since the voters are clearly against new taxes, a method by which those who benefit pay seems to us a desirable way to pay for the needed facilities,” he said.

But Irvine City Councilman Larry Agran, who helped draft the ballot measure, said the lawsuit is “an admission of failure” on the part of those businesses committed to implementing the fee program in Irvine. “It is, in my view, a last-ditch attempt to impose upon Irvine residents massive new fees without the consent of the governed,” he said.

William Speros, president of the Committee of Seven Thousand, which collected the signatures for the initiative, said he believes the business organizations are “grasping at straws” to ensure defeat of the ballot measure.

“It’s my understanding that the law says the City Council must hear this this coming Tuesday night, and I would be shocked if any judge could step into position to alter that date in any way, shape or form for any reason,” he said.

Speros and Agran said they believe that, before the lawsuit was filed, a majority of the City Council was set to adopt the initiative without submitting it to a vote. In that case, fees proposed for individual freeways would have to be placed on the ballot before being assessed.

Council members could not be reached for comment after being served with the lawsuit.

However, Councilman David Sills said earlier in the day that he would prefer to await the outcome of the suit before taking any action, delaying the issue until the June, 1986, election instead. If no lawsuit were filed, he said, he would have been inclined to certify the initiative for a citywide vote, rather than simply adopting it via a City Council ordinance.

In their suit, the business groups are also arguing that the title of the initiative, the “Citizens’ Right-to-Vote Ordinance” was misleading, another reason for disqualifying it. Erskine said several building association members who support the freeway fee program signed petitions for the initiative without realizing its intent.

Also joining in the lawsuit are Richard Munsell, former advance planning director for Orange County, and Lyndon Calerdine, former Irvine planning commissioner and transportation commissioner. Both had key roles in planning the proposed freeways. Munsell left his job with the county to join a private home-building firm.