Both Sides in Irvine Ballot OKing Project Claim Victory : Development: Foes inspired to take on upcoming projects. Irvine Co. and council backers claim vote endorses their plans.

Tuesday’s paper-thin margin of victory for a controversial Irvine Co. proposal to build 3,850 more homes here foreshadows more political battles--even the possibility of one next week--over other developments.

While opponents of Westpark II said the vote bolstered their recently launched effort to contest a variety of pending projects, City Council members and Irvine Co. executives asserted that the election was a healthy endorsement for city planning decisions.

“Obviously, this was very close,” said Mayor Sally Anne Sheridan, who supported Westpark II. “However, it’s getting a growth issue to pass in Orange County that is a handful, and the people reaffirmed their belief that the city’s master plan is OK.”

Final election returns released Wednesday show that Measure B passed by a margin of 2.5% although the Irvine Co. spent almost $600,000 in the most expensive political campaign in city history. The final tally was 8,486 yes, 8,088 no--a difference of 398 votes.

Measure B, which asked voters whether they wanted Westpark II, was forced onto the ballot by Irvine Tomorrow, which pressed a petition drive this spring to qualify the measure for the election.

The project had won initial approval last December from the City Council. It calls for single-family homes and condominiums priced between $140,000 and $300,000, which will be built between Woodbridge and the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station.

Members of Irvine Tomorrow charged Wednesday that the Irvine Co. bought the election and that approval of Westpark II shows the city is a “company town” with politics and planning dictated by the giant real estate and development firm. Continued approvals of large housing projects by the council, they said, would only foster more anti-growth sentiment.

However, proponents of the development, including council members and company representatives, said the results show that voters approve of the city’s future direction.

Irvine voters also decisively passed Measure C, a non-binding advisory vote on the city’s 3-year-old agreement with the Irvine Co. to set aside about 9,000 acres of open space in exchange for the promise to be able to fully develop prime land elsewhere in the city. The vote was 12,695 yes to 3,582 no.

Irvine Tomorrow contended that the popular Measure C was put on the ballot by the Irvine Co.’s council allies to confuse voters--a charge supporters denied.

The two measures plunged Irvine’s political factions and the Irvine Co. into a broad, sometimes contentious debate over the future of urban development and how much voters should participate in the planning process.

At stake too was the fate of other Irvine Co. projects such as Northwood 5, which Irvine Tomorrow has suggested it might target for a referendum. The City Council will consider giving final approval to Northwood 5 next week.

On Wednesday, Irvine Tomorrow, which is led by supporters of former Mayor Larry Agran, criticized the Irvine Co.’s expensive campaign--costing about $70 per yes vote--and reiterated threats to oppose other developments. Agran was narrowly defeated by Sheridan in June, 1990, after 12 years on the council.

In a six-page news release, the group chided the city’s largest landowner and the council majority for trying to dismiss Measure B and the election as mischief promoted by a small fringe group.

“We will think seriously about a referendum on Northwood 5,” said Mark P. Petracca, a UCI assistant professor and member of Irvine Tomorrow. “The sentiment to slow down the pace of development in Irvine will not disappear. As the company begins to build (Westpark II) and as the council continues its hurried approval (of developments) this sentiment will continue to fester and grow.”

Even Irvine Tomorrow’s opponents were conceding Wednesday that the group is a considerable force in city politics and had turned an otherwise boring ballot into an exciting election, which attracted 30% of registered voters to the polls.

The group labeled Westpark II as bad planning that would create a host of urban problems, such as traffic congestion, overburdened infrastructure and inadequate schools. Its stated position stressed that there was a new anti-growth mood in the city that would stop Westpark II.

In its statement, Irvine Tomorrow called on the council to heed the close vote and strike harder bargains with the Irvine Co. to extract concessions from the multibillion-dollar company--roads, parks and school sites--that would benefit the city as a whole.

“There was so much misinformation and confusion that was paid for by the Irvine Co., I don’t think that it’s a clear mandate from the community,” said Mary Ann Gaido, a former planning commissioner and City Council member who fought against Westpark II. “I look at the vote the other way--they almost lost after spending so much per vote.”

The Irvine Co. spent $573,000 on an extensive campaign that included detailed mailers, television ads, canvassing and gimmicks such as refrigerator door magnets and Halloween parties for children held at some of the city’s retail centers.

“This was the most beautifully bought election I’ve ever seen,” said Councilwoman Paula Werner, who voted against Westpark II when it came before the council. “In one election, we’ve gone from the city of Irvine to the Irvine Co.’s town. It’s blatant who controls the town now.”

But council members who supported Westpark II and Irvine Co. executives say that it should have been no surprise to anyone that the company would protect its interests. Arguing that they did not buy the election, company officials pointed out that other well-financed ballot campaigns by developers have failed, including those backing projects in Seal Beach, Newport Beach and Costa Mesa.

Statewide, more than half of all recent pro-growth ballot issues have apparently failed while anti-growth measures have done substantially better, according to the California Assn. of Realtors. The organization’s statistics show that between 1986 and 1990, voters turned down 51 out of 90 pro-growth items and approved 71 out of 131 anti-growth measures.

Irvine Co. officials contended that a strong educational effort was needed in this election to counter the sloganeering and misleading simplifications of the issue by Irvine Tomorrow, which labeled Westpark II “rampant overdevelopment.”

“Now the losers are trying to denigrate the vote,” said Larry Thomas, vice president of corporate communications for the Irvine Co. “But the same people who said they had more than 8,000 signatures from voters opposed to the plan could not get that many voters out to the polls. They said the community was anti-growth, anti-council and anti-Irvine Co., yet it did not turn out that way.”

As far as seeking more concessions from the Irvine Co. in the future, Sheridan and Councilman Bill Vardoulis said the council will not change the way it handles planning decisions, and they defended the council’s record of extracting benefits from the Irvine Co. before its approves company projects.

Vardoulis said the public already plays an enormous role in the planning process and has been instrumental in extracting bargains for parkways and open space from the Irvine Co.

“We have put in the hands of the public the chance to give substantial input on development,” Vardoulis said. “The deals are being struck. This is nothing new. We are involving as many people as possible in the process. What Irvine Tomorrow says holds no water.”

Times correspondent Tom McQueeney contributed to this report.

Unofficial Final Election Returns BALLOT MEASURES Irvine A--Filling Council Vacancy 100% Precincts Reporting: Votes (%) Yes: 10,768 (71.8) No: 4,237 (28.2) B--Planning Village 38 (Westpark II) Yes: 8,486 (51.2) No: 8,088 (48.8) C--Conservation, Open Space and Land-Use (Advisory) Yes: 12,695 (78.0) No: 3,582 (22.0) * Winning side of measures is in bold type.