There is an old saying comparing governmental action to sausage making. Here in Irvine, it appears Farmer John is running the show.
In July the Irvine City Council attempted to find a way to satisfy the intensifying controversy over a proposal to build a new village of 3,100 homes and apartments on the Oak Creek Golf Course. The plan the Irvine Company offered features nearly $100 million in promised benefits, including dedication of 300 acres of open space above Orchard Hills.
The problem is that the golf course was identified in a 1988 city ballot measure approved by voters as one element of various areas to be preserved as permanent open space. In return for giving up development potential on those parcels, the Irvine Company received permission to intensify development in other areas of the city. That process has been taking place incrementally for the past 37 years.
Then City Attorney Jeff Melching told the council that because the 1988 initiative was placed on the ballot by the council–not as a result of a signature gathering process–that legal distinction allows the council to change the zoning without a public vote.
Outrage ensued.
Residents descended on council meetings loudly denouncing not only the proposed development, but the possibility that the public vote promised in the 1988 initiative would be ignored. Two former mayors, a former council member and even a former Irvine Company executive who negotiated the agreement, Michael LeBlanc, reminded council members the promise made in 1988 had to be honored.
When tasked to develop a solution to the matter, Melching drafted a ballot measure combining a set of items unrelated to the central issue, proposing that all the city’s other open spaces–already in public ownership–be protected from possible future development by requiring a public vote. He also said that some city parks may have “underlying designations” that could allow development on them. He did not identify any of them.
Finally, he proposed within the same draft ballot measure that the citizens allow the development by freeing the council from their obligation to hold an election if 310 acres of other open space was identified as part of the deal.
In conclusion, Melching suggested that a special election be set for November 18 of this year to place the matter before the Irvine electorate.
Council members and residents alike found Melching’s proposal confusing. Those of us who have dealt with ballot measures in past lives know that crafting the precise wording of a ballot measure is one of the dark arts of political consulting; an adroit wordsmith can convince voters who support a measure that they should vote no on it, and vice versa. One council member correctly noted that a voter seeing a ballot title with the words “open space” on it might naturally assume one thing, while the fine print could mean something totally different.
The council told Melching to try again and develop different language. Mayor Larry Agran also invited Michael LeBlanc to write ballot language. As the door appears to be open for other ideas, allow me to assist.
First and foremost, the council should discard the idea of a special election. Why? Because the council’s first action on the Irvine Company proposal was to start a process to evaluate and study it, from legal, planning and environmental standpoints, then to send it through the standard city commission review process. Both the city and the company are on record with a timeline for that process ending in Spring/Summer of 2026, a year from now. So what’s the rush for a special election?
I say set the election for the statewide primary, June 2, 2026. This will promote greater voter participation and save the city the cost of running a special election, which could easily reach seven figures. The primary is an election voters are aware of, much more so than one a week before Thanksgiving as now proposed.
Moreover, a year from now, details about what the new village will look like, how it will function, what mix of housing will be built and other critical details will be explained in detail– voters will have a more complete understanding of what they are being asked to consider, as opposed to now, when the plan is just the number of units being proposed, plus the identified benefits.
Second and most important, write one ballot measure that addresses the single issue that has provoked citizen opposition: shall development be allowed on land designated in 1988 by a vote of the people as open space? Here is my proposed ballot language:
Shall the Oak Creek Golf Course, designated in the 1988 Irvine Open Space Initiative as permanent open space, be rezoned to allow residential and commercial development?
The ballot title would be “Proposed Rezoning of the Oak Creek Golf Course.” Pretty clear: if you want development, vote yes. If you want it to remain in open space, vote no. Arguments for both sides, followed by rebuttal arguments, will appear on the ballot, just like in every election when initiatives and propositions are up for a vote. This is where issues like state mandates for more housing, traffic impacts and other relevant matters can be debated.
Michael Stockstill is retired. He worked at the Irvine Company 1978-91 and has lived in Irvine since 1975. He is the co-author of a book on the history of the planning and development of the Irvine Ranch.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
For a different view on this issue, consider: