Commentary: Proponents of development initiative aren’t giving the full story

Richard Huffman and Cynthia McDonald’s Sept. 16 commentary, “Initiative would give Costa Mesans say over development,” contains two incredible statements.

First, they state that Costa Mesa First’s “Initiative for an Ordinance to Give the People of Costa Mesa Control of their Future” would require voter approval for projects that depend on major changes to zoning rules and the general plan.

This is false. They may define an increase in 200 average daily trips (ADT) as “major.” But this is hardly major. For context, the Starbucks on 17th Street generates as many as 180 trips during a peak hour.

It’s curious that no proponent has explained, despite repeated requests, the inclusion of a provision that counts a trip by just about every SUV on the road today — from Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ford Explorers to Chevy Tahoes — as two trips, thus dramatically lowering the 200 ADT threshold.

Next, in promoting an initiative that would requires an election for approval of projects that fall under the initiative, they state the following:

“Rather than waiting for an election and hoping that the makeup of the City Council changes, this initiative would give the voters a voice regardless of who is elected.”

So the electorate can be trusted to act in its own best interest with regard to development approvals, but not when it comes to who sits on the City Council, which, under state law, acts as the city’s planning agency?

Fascinating, truly.

The authors also make a pretty broad statement that is not supported by any facts:

“This kind of citizen review of major decisions is widely used in the planning arena, especially in coastal communities subject to economic pressures to increase density.”

Maybe in charter cities, but the state planning and development law does not mandate voter approval of individual development projects when they include site-specific zoning or general plan amendments.

Newport Beach’s Greenlight law is dramatically different from this highly restrictive initiative. Newport’s thresholds for voter review are far higher than this one. Newport’s thresholds are 40,000 square feet of nonresidential space, 100 housing units or 100 peak-hour car trips. This one is 10,000 square feet of nonresidential, 40 housing units or 200 average daily trips.

There is nothing “limited, modest [or] measured” about this proposal. It is far more extreme and restrictive than Newport’s Greenlight, to which at least one proponent has compared this.

I am disappointed with this commentary. If this is indicative of the “education” the public is receiving about this initiative, we have much to do to dispel their misinformation. Why, if their initiative is so “limited, modest and measured,” do they have to mischaracterize it or fail to explain their trips rationale?

ROBERT DIXON is chairman of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission.