Irvine voters will likely have a chance to cast their votes in a November special election to decide whether or not developers can develop 3,100 housing units at the Oak Creek Golf Course — as city leaders begin early steps to review the proposal.
It’s not yet clear what that ballot measure will exactly look like.
Irvine City Council members are expected to mull over a few different options during their next meeting on Aug. 12. Those ballot measure options will be published by the city for public review on Aug. 5.
Over the past few weeks, council members have been in the early stages of discussing what could become Irvine’s final residential village, known as Oak Park – currently home to a golf course.
The Irvine Company’s preliminary proposal for the development would replace the golf course with 3,100 housing units, a new school, parks and other community spaces.
Many nearby residents have largely opposed the project due to concerns of increased traffic, overcrowding in town and strains on local schools.
More prominently, a large number of residents have been raising concerns that the golf course is a preserved open space, according to a designation passed by voters in 1988 and reaffirmed by voters again in 1991.
[Read: Irvine’s Oak Creek Golf Club Could Become Housing, Does it Go Against a Voter Initiative?]
City officials have debated over the past few weeks about whether or not the council has the legal ability to remove that preservation designation without asking the voters through another ballot measure.
[Read: Is Irvine Going to Ask Voters for Approval to Develop a Golf Course into Housing?]
But council members eventually decided the best decision is to bring the question back to the voters again in a special election and ask whether or not they wish to remove that designation before any development moves forward.
Irvine is ranked number two in the country for park access, according to the Trust for Public Lands – a nonprofit park advocacy group.
The group found that 28% of the city’s land is dedicated to park space and that 96% of residents live within a 10-minute walk to a park.
A Misleading Ballot Proposal?
During the council’s meeting on July 22, council members kicked off the debate with a few ideas of how the measure could be formatted.
City Attorney Jeff Melching presented one idea that would expand and update the city’s inventory of protected open space to include new lands that the city has acquired since 1988. It would also prevent non-open space development in these areas without additional voter approval.
But in the ballot measure option Melching presented, those added protections wouldn’t extend to the golf course, effectively allowing residential development on this site as long as the Irvine Company gives the city 315 acres of open space in return for developing there.
That 315 acres would include avocado groves and surrounding areas in the Orchard Hills and Portola Springs villages.
Most residents at the meeting weren’t happy about that option.
“That was so difficult to sit through — the worst bait and switch I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” Joanne Slobodien, an Irvine resident and representative of the Save Irvine Open Space group, said at the meeting.
“You’re moving ahead with a ballot measure that appears to protect open space but intentionally excludes Oak Creek, the only land currently at risk,” she said. “You’re proposing to swap central open space with avocados. That’s not preservation — it’s deception.”
Some speakers at the meeting suggested having two ballot measures to make sure the golf course issue is separate from the action to preserve other open spaces.
“The issue of these other open space lands should not be attached to the golf course,” resident Derek Shirk said at the meeting. He lives in the Orangetree neighborhood, right next to the golf course. “The voters should not be forced to abandon the golf course in order to protect these other open space lands.”
Former Irvine Company executive Michael LeBlanc, who helped draft the original open space agreement in 1988, agreed with that sentiment.
“I would put the initiative resolution back on the ballot so people understand that we’re thinking of taking away the central city open space and replacing it with a housing development,” he said at the meeting. “Voters that want more housing can say yes to that, or if people want to say no to keep it preservation.”
Mayor Larry Agran asked LeBlanc to work with the city attorney to draft his version of the dual ballot measures. Agran also asked Melching to draft another proposed ballot measure based on the other suggestion presented during the meeting.
All the options are slated to be considered and discussed at the council’s next meeting on Aug. 12.
Councilmember Kathleen Treseder said she thought Melching’s version was misleading.
“I thought, based on our past council discussion, that if we had a draft ballot measure, that it would plainly ask about what the voters’ wishes are for the fate of the Oak Creek golf course,” she said at the meeting.
“If you even look at the title of the agenda item, it’s ‘Open Space Preservation Ballot Measure.’ If I were a voter, not understanding the context of why this was brought forward, I would think, ‘Great, we want to preserve open space,” Treseder added.
She said she supports housing, but can’t support a ballot measure that’s worded in a confusing way.
“Even though I very much want this development to happen, and will support it as much as I can, I cannot in good conscience do that by potentially misleading the voters,” she said.
Councilmember James Mai said the language needs to be crystal clear.
“The people should know exactly what they’re voting on, what’s exactly on the ballot, and that’s it,” he said at the meeting.
Heidi Francois, another representative of the Save Irvine Open Space group, said she supported the dual ballot initiative approach.
“I was surprised to hear Agran invite Mike LeBlanc to team up with Melching for the ballot measure verbiage,” Francois wrote in a text to Voice of OC. “It’s been a huge concern for us, look at that ballot letter from Melching. It’s exactly what we didn’t want: misleading.”
“And the separated ballot initiative approach is brilliant,” she said. “I think it’s obvious by now that Irvinians want their open spaces preserved, including Oak Creek.”
The special election is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 18, pending formal confirmation from the city council. According to the Orange County Registrar of Voters, the special election is expected to cost nearly $2 million.
The council is expected to publish the multiple versions of the ballot measure for public review on Aug. 5 before formally considering them at their next meeting on Aug. 12, beginning at 5 p.m.
Legal Letter Regarding Oak Creek
The city also received a legal letter from a law firm representing the Orange Tree Master Homeowners Association — located directly next to the golf course — and the Save Irvine Open Space group.
The letter, dated July 17, asserts that the city must ask the voters to remove the preservation designation to comply with the initiative resolution passed by voters in 1988.
It also asserts that the city should have already taken control of the land owned by the Irvine Company through an easement so it can remain open space.
“The easement … is in the form of the ownership right granted to the City to protect this public asset on behalf of the residents of Irvine,” reads the letter.
“There is reason to question whether or not this easement was actually conveyed which, if it was not, raises serious concerns about this deficiency and calls for prompt action by the City to correct this and require that this easement now be conveyed immediately.”
The council had a closed session meeting regarding this letter before the open session city council meeting on Tuesday night.
During open session, Councilmember Mike Carroll asked City Attorney Melching if he would be willing to meet with their legal team.
“Absolutely,” Melching said.
Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor. Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.
