Irvine Group Tries to Block Freeway Fees

An Irvine citizens group asked the 4th District Court of Appeal on Thursday to prevent the Irvine City Council from implementing an ordinance charging fees to developers for construction of three new freeways in south Orange County.

Arguing that city residents should be allowed to vote on the $104-million fee program, the Committee of Seven Thousand filed a request to block the fees until the appeals court has ruled on an initiative that would require a citywide vote on major new road fees.

The City Council voted 3 to 1 early Wednesday to adopt the fee ordinance, although the adoption will not become official until the ordinance’s second reading on Oct. 22.

Irvine’s participation is considered crucial to the success of the countywide fee program, which would raise a total of $411 million in developer fees, enough to pay nearly half the costs of the proposed Foothill, Eastern and San Joaquin Hills freeways.

The Committee of Seven Thousand collected signatures from about 22% of the city’s registered voters on an initiative to submit the fee program to a citywide vote. The group argues that the fee really represents an unwarranted tax on Irvine residents because they will have to pay more for homes and retail goods as a result.

The initiative was thrown out by a Superior Court judge in August as a result of a lawsuit from a coalition of development industry and business groups. The coalition argued that local groups opposed to new freeways should not be allowed to block funding for the facilities, which are of regional and statewide importance.

The action filed Thursday, if granted by the appellate court, would prevent Irvine from putting the ordinance into effect until the entire case is reviewed on appeal. Committee members, represented by the Los Angeles-based Center for Law and the Public Interest, have promised to appeal to the state Supreme Court if necessary.

Referendum Considered

Moreover, the group is “seriously considering” a referendum campaign as another avenue to submit the issue to the voters if Thursday’s move fails, said William Speros, committee chairman.

“We don’t wish the city to go out and start collecting fees to the point that it becomes a household way of doing things before we even have a chance to let people know what’s happening,” Speros said. “Everybody says this is a great deal for the people of the City of Irvine. If it’s such a great deal, why not let them vote?”

Meanwhile, it was not clear Thursday whether Councilman Larry Agran, who co-drafted the so-called “Citizens Right to Vote” initiative, could prevent a special City Council meeting scheduled for 10:30 this morning to discuss the latest legal maneuver.

Agran, who has long argued that the fees are an unwarranted tax and a way of opening the city to massive new development, said he had not received notice of the special meeting, called by Mayor David Baker, within the 24 hours required under the state’s public meeting laws.

Could Prevent Meeting

Thus, Agran could prevent the City Council majority from meeting to instruct its attorneys to fight the latest move by COST.

“If the purpose (of the meeting) is to involve the city and the city attorney and the taxpayers’ money in an effort to drive a nail in the coffin of the Citizens Right to Vote initiative, I’ll not participate,” Agran said. “I would not want to be part of a hurry-up meeting, the purpose of which is to put the city and the city taxpayers’ funds on the side of the developers, as opposed to the citizens who circulated the . . . initiative.”

Baker conceded that Agran, who could not be reached by the city staff until 1:15 p.m. Thursday, could prevent the special council meeting from taking place.

“I know (council members) Barbara Wiener and Sally Anne Miller were both notified, and I know our city staff tried to reach Larry all morning long. . . . Whether it was 2 1/2 hours (late) or whatever, I apologize for the inconvenience, and I certainly don’t want to inconvenience Larry, but I regard this as an important matter for the city.”

Council Officially Neutral

The City Council is now officially neutral on the legal case. Council members adopted that stance after the Building Industry Assn., the Industrial League of Orange County and the Orange County and Irvine chambers of commerce filed suit to block the initiative, saying they preferred to let the parties resolve it themselves in court.

The council did not act to adopt the ordinance until after the initiative had been rejected by the court.

But Baker said Thursday he believes the council needs to act now to defend the developer fee program. Because of the city’s crucial role in the program--about 25% of all fees collected would come from Irvine developers--the city must move as quickly as possible, Baker said.

“I think for us to wait potentially a year or more for this appellate decision to come down would cause irreparable damage to the (freeways) as a potential for resolving Orange County’s transportation problems,” Baker said.

“It bothers me that there’s these constant roadblocks,” he added. “Really, so many of these efforts, whether they be called Citizens Right to Vote, or concerns about developer fees, the real concern is that some people don’t want these roads, when in fact I think the great majority of people are sincerely concerned about transportation and really feel it’s crucial to build these roads that will take traffic around us, rather than through us.”