Commentary: Measure Y is unwise and unneeded

To preface my opposition to Measure Y — the ballot measure written ostensibly to give Costa Mesans “control of their future” — it’s important I disclose that much of my professional career has transpired in the land development arena. I work with communities, governments and land developers to build consensus in support of development projects.

That said, Measure Y, which would establish a requirement for voter approval of development projects that cross certain thresholds in excess of Costa Mesa’s General Plan or Zoning Code, is unwise and unneeded.

Measure Y was crafted by a group of Costa Mesa residents dissatisfied with what they perceive to be the recent approval of development projects that exceed the parameters of the city’s General Plan and zoning code. These developments, they argue, are too dense, will drive up our population and create too much traffic.

Their solution? Require that any project (save for hospitals and schools) that exceed the General Plan or seek variances from the zoning code, must be put before the voters if the project does one of the following: Generate more than 200 additional average daily trips; increase the volume/capacity of an intersection based on a specified formula; change the intersection utilization or level of service of an intersection based on a specific formula; add 40 or more housing units; add 10,000 or more square feet of retail, office or commercial space; or if the proposed project, combined with other projects, within eight years and a half mile of each other, meets or surpasses any of the above mentioned triggers.

Here’s why Measure Y is unwise.

It handcuffs future development projects to arbitrary thresholds in relationship to the current General Plan without regard to the unique constraints of individual properties and changing market conditions. In essence, it would take away the very tools state law created (e.g. variances, zone changes, General Plan and Specific Plan amendments) to allow some flexibility in approaches to land use in response to unique site characteristics and market conditions. It will have a chilling effect on future economic development in Costa Mesa because developers willing to put capital at risk will refuse to do so because of the uncertainty the initiative creates.

More troubling, it’s a recipe for the stagnation of our tax base, our housing stock and our commercial/retail base.

Why does that matter? The cost of government and public services isn’t getting any cheaper. If Measure Y dramatically curtails new development, as it surely will, we can expect higher taxes on existing residents to pay for increasingly expensive services. The alternative is we can welcome thoughtful growth, bring more taxpayers into the city, and keep tax rates where they are.

Here’s why Measure Y is unneeded.

The public already has the ability to exercise its vote to overturn bad development projects. City councils are the legislative bodies duly vested with the authority to make planning decision on behalf of the public. If the public doesn’t like a particular project, it has the power under state law to qualify a referendum. When that occurs, the council must either rescind its approval or put the project before the voters. Even more powerful, if the public believes its council is repeatedly screwing up by serially approving unpopular developments, it can un-holster its power to recall its council members.

Measure Y would codify in perpetuity a land-use initiative process over and above the normal processes established by state law, including the ability of the public to resort to the referendum and recall. It would trigger any number of expensive elections based on arbitrary thresholds, and remove any meaningful flexibility planners and developers have to adapt land uses to specific properties or market conditions. Worse, it would smother the economic development Costa Mesa needs to broaden and modernize its tax base so current residents aren’t stuck paying higher taxes for increasingly costly public services.

Rather than put in place — permanently — an additional layer that’s inefficient, arbitrary, costly and rigid, let Costa Mesans use the tools state law already grants them to dispense with development projects they don’t like.

BYRON DE ARAKAL is a member of the Costa Mesa Parks and Recreation Commission.