Irvine to Put Westpark II on the Ballot

In a victory for a grass-roots group that formed to fight the Irvine Co.’s latest housing development, the City Council has set aside its approval of the 3,800-home project to let voters decide whether it should be built.

The Nov. 5 ballot measure is the first such challenge to the giant developer in the history of Irvine, a city carefully designed by the Irvine Co. But the slow-growth activists of the group Irvine Tomorrow say residents are no longer willing to accept the Irvine Co.’s pace of growth if it threatens their quality of life.

Westpark II is the latest large-scale housing project in Orange County to be attacked by community activists. Laguna Beach is in the process of buying land in Laguna Canyon to save it from development after publicly pressuring the Irvine Co. to sell the property at a price considered less than market rate.

And last year in Seal Beach, residents filed a lawsuit that resulted in the City Council overturning Mola Development Corp.’s plans to build a 329-unit project on the city’s last large open space area. The Mola project is scheduled to be decided by Seal Beach voters later this year.

Problems arose for Westpark II after the Irvine City Council approved the development in December. Irvine Tomorrow members, criticizing the project as too large and without sufficient affordable housing, collected enough signatures to force the council to overturn its approval of the project or place it on the ballot.

“We truly are at a crossroads in Irvine’s history,” said Christopher B. Mears, chairman of Irvine Tomorrow. “We are on the threshold of either being in a period of the most active development in the city’s history or a period of very, very slow growth--and possibly no growth for the immediate future. The referendum undeniably will signal the direction the city will be going in the next decade.”

The Irvine Co., which earlier had hinted it might sue if Irvine Tomorrow’s referendum was placed on the ballot, said it will take no legal action to stop the election but will lobby voters to approve Westpark II.

“We’re going to defend the plan, contact voters and tell them our side of the story here and why we think (Westpark II) is a good plan,” company spokesman C. Michael Stockstill said Wednesday.

City Councilman Bill Vardoulis said that if voters reject Westpark II, it would be in contradiction to the city’s General Plan that outlines where homes and businesses will be built.

“I and many people I know moved here because it was a planned community,” Vardoulis said. “Everybody knew where we were headed.”

If referendums become commonplace, he said, future planning will be done at the ballot box.

But Councilwoman Paula Werner, who voted against the Westpark II project in December, said a successful referendum would merely send a message to the City Council about what residents want.

“It would send a very clear message that the residents at large do not agree with both the current council majority in their views on growth and development in this community and with the Irvine Co.,” Werner said. “I think the referendum is going to win hands down.”

During the public hearings on Westpark II, at least a dozen members of Irvine Tomorrow said the plan didn’t require the Irvine Co. to build enough affordable housing, allowed homes too close to two high-tension power lines that run along the west side of the village, and didn’t require the company to insulate the homes from helicopter noise at the Tustin Marine Corps Helicopter Air Station next door to the project.

Irvine Co. officials have repeatedly defended the project as meeting or exceeding city standards.

Westpark II meets all requirements of the city’s master plan, which outlines a village of up to 4,270 homes for the site on an agricultural field just east of the Marine Corps base.

Even though plans for Westpark II meet the city’s minimum requirements, Mears has said the City Council should have taken extra measures to protect current and future residents of the city.

Irvine Tomorrow wants the Irvine Co. to:

* Price 25% of the homes in Westpark II in ranges affordable to families earning less than the county’s median income of about $49,700 for a family of four. The current requirements list the 25% figure as a goal.

* Set back homes farther away from power lines to protect the residents from possible health effects of electromagnetic radiation given off by electrical lines. Current requirements call for no homes to be built closer to the power lines than would expose residents to magnetic fields stronger than found in the average American home.

* Insulate all homes against helicopter noise. Currently, only homes planned on one side of the project would have extra sound insulation. Still, the noise that would be found inside the uninsulated homes would fall within noise standards set by the city.

Irvine Tomorrow residents have also criticized the project as too large and not having adequate improvements to reduce traffic congestion in the area.

Irvine Co. officials and some City Council members have called the Irvine Tomorrow referendum a veiled attempt at seizing political control after a conservative council majority was elected last June. The new council members said they planned to move forward with Westpark II, which stalled before the previous council because of disagreements over the number of affordable housing units.

Besides Westpark II, the Irvine Co. has submitted plans for two more massive residential and commercial developments in the city, in areas planners call Northwood 5 and Village 12. Irvine is broken down into “villages,” self-contained communities of homes, schools, churches and shopping centers.

In a statement issued in January, the Irvine Co. characterized the Irvine Tomorrow leadership as “a no-growth fringe group of political liberals who are using Westpark II as a vehicle for their attempt to regain political power in Irvine.”

Mears said Irvine Tomorrow is only helping to rein in the power of the Irvine Co. and give residents more say in how the city is developed.

“This referendum will be not only a referendum on development, but a referendum on the policies and practices of the City Council,” he said.

If successful, Mears said, the referendum likely will affect how the Irvine Co. can build in Westpark II and the future Northwood 5 and Village 12 projects.

“It’s because of the implications of this referendum that it has met with such strong opposition from the council and the Irvine Co.,” he said.

Slowed development, more open space and less air pollution are probably the biggest issues in Irvine today and have supporters from across the political spectrum, Mears said. Since the City Council wasn’t taking charge of those issues, the residents had to, he said.