Costa Mesa’s Slow-Growth Initiative Killed

In a potentially crippling third strike against the constitutionality of local slow-growth measures, a Superior Court judge Wednesday overturned a Costa Mesa voter initiative that sought to stall new development until existing traffic problems are met.

In staunch agreement with earlier rulings on San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano initiatives, Judge William F. Rylaarsdam ruled that the Costa Mesa measure placed an unfair burden on developers to help fix old problems that they did not necessarily create.

And Rylaarsdam, rejecting the notion that the non-traffic elements of the city’s Measure G might be salvaged, deemed such an attempt “obviously contrary to the voters’ intent” in passing the traffic initiative by just 173 votes last November.

The ruling marked a particularly tough blow for the slow-growth movement, because its leaders had hoped to show that the Costa Mesa initiative--worded differently than those offered to voters countywide and in various cities--was a narrowly defined expression of voter sentiment that could pass legal muster.

“The unfortunate result of this decision is to institutionalize traffic gridlock,” said Dave Wheeler, a former Costa Mesa city councilman who vigorously supported Measure G and co-authored the countywide slow-growth initiative that failed in June, 1988.

“Basically, this means the Orange County traffic horizon is pretty bleak,” he said. “The streets in Costa Mesa are so torn up now, and they can’t even keep up with current demand. And now it’s pretty scary that we won’t have any remedial action in the future.”

City planners, while cautious about the immediate impact of the ruling, said the invalidation of Measure G could clear the way for the city to look at more than a dozen mid- to large-scale commercial and residential projects that had been largely stalled under the initiative’s tough provisions.

Opponents of the slow-growth movement, meanwhile, hailed the decision as an important reaffirmation of constitutional principles.

“The drafters of these initiatives have to realize now that the Constitution and state statutes restrict the limits (voters) can try to place on development,” said Jeffrey Thomas, who has helped represent the Building and Industry Assn. in all three of its successful legal fights against Orange County slow-growth initiatives.

Added Camille Courtney, who heads Mesa Pride, a residents’ group opposed to Measure G: “We are delighted.” She called the slow-growth initiatives “thinly veiled attempts to control growth.”

The Costa Mesa City Council, named by the BIA and a local developer as a defendant in the anti-Measure G lawsuit, can still appeal Rylaarsdam’s ruling.

But City Manager Allan L. Roeder said he doubts that will happen.

“For the majority of the council members, this is obviously good news. The majority have not favored the initiative, and we have, quite frankly, really struggled to institute it since last November,” Roeder said.

Councilwoman Sandra L. Genis, an active supporter of the measure, reluctantly agreed with that view, saying she does not have “a great deal of confidence that the rest of the council will pursue” an appeal.

“I am disappointed but not really surprised (by the ruling), and I just hope we do not go back to business as usual as a result of this case,” Genis said. “I hope it will not mean the city will cease to pay attention to the issue--traffic and growth--that the measure was designed to deal with.”

Roeder, noting that only 4% of the city’s lands remain undeveloped, said: “I’m not sure we’ll see any kind of stampede in new development in the event that Measure G remains overturned.

“I think what you will see is a more rational approach toward upgrading the city’s General Plan and reviewing the merits of the proposed developments that come our way.”

Perry Valentine, a city planner for Costa Mesa, said the ruling “will make it easier” for potential developers to apply to the city for land-use permits, after perhaps having been dissuaded in recent months by the slow-growth provision.

He estimated that “a dozen or more” major projects might be freed to proceed through the review process, including a proposed commercial project on the 30-acre Transpacific Development Co. site on Anton Boulevard.

Left unresolved by the ruling is the future of C.J. Segerstrom & Son’s proposal for the $300-million Home Ranch project in Costa Mesa, a development that was at the center of much of last year’s local political debate and was rejected by voters in another November ballot initiative.

City planners said the Measure G defeat could help eliminate one hurdle facing the project. But they and Malcolm Ross, director of planning and design for Segerstrom, cautioned that the real test for the project will come during the city’s upcoming review of its General Plan.

Times staff writer Carla Rivera contributed to this story.