Thumbs up on Mission Viejo Measure D
The following report is from the editor of the Mission viejo Dispatch. While the “Special Interests” have probably spent over $100,000 to oppose the Mission Viejo “Right to Vote” Ballot Measure D, the Dispatch provides 18 questions on the Measure with corresponding answers. www.missionviejodispatch.com
Measure D FAQs
by MissionViejoDispatch.com on May 25, 2010
The Dispatch supports the Right To Vote Initiative (Measure D) because D provides a unique opportunity for voters to enact protection for our nationally acclaimed master plan. Special interests are pouring a lot of money into defeating D because they don’t want residents interfering with their potential profits from higher density and urbanization. Hopefully the following FAQs will be helpful:
Q. Why is the Right-To-Vote Initiative on the June 8 ballot?
A. Because 8,372 voting residents signed petitions in support of a ballot measure giving voters oversight of major changes to the MV master plan.
Q. Why are residents concerned?
A. The quality of life in many OC cities has been degraded by major zoning changes when a toxic mix of politicians and developers increased land use density without voter approval.
Q. What are the problems with higher density?
A. Overdevelopment creates adverse impacts to traffic, schools, sports parks, public facilities, open space, aesthetics, and infrastructure.
Q. Why now?
A. Mission Viejo is virtually built-out creating more pressure for high-rise and in-fill expansion. The population and number of homes already exceed the maximum planned when Mission Viejo was incorporated.
Q. Have other cities adopted right-to-vote measures?
A. Voters in Orange County’s two most affluent cities, Newport Beach and Yorba Linda, passed similar measures requiring voter approval of major zoning changes. Those cities have beautiful neighborhoods, top-rated schools and vibrant business communities. MV’s Measure D is modeled after the unchallenged Yorba Linda ordinance.
Q. Who are the opponents of Measure D?
A. Opponents are primarily those who could profit from more homes and population. The Association of Realtors would benefit from more houses and is paying for slick anti-D mailers and street signs. Also involved in the anti-D campaign is the public relations consultant for the developer which tried to buy Casta del Sol Golf Course for high density housing. Many wealthy special interests stand to financially benefit from more urbanization.
Q. Was the ballot argument against Measure D found misleading by a court trial?
A. A Superior Court judge recently found the opponents’ official ballot argument against Measure D was factually false or misleading and ordered the City Clerk and County Registrar to remove significant statements. One of those statements claimed Casta Golf Course was forever protected from housing development by state law and flood control; another claimed businesses wishing to expand their facilities would have to go to a full vote of the people at their own expense; another claimed residents would be “forced” to pay for subsidized housing. All three were deemed false. Supporters of D believe the remaining statement still includes substantial false opinion, but false “opinion” cannot be legally removed.
Q. Does the anti-D group have a spokesperson?
A. The lead spokesperson against D at a recent Cox TV forum was an attorney from an L.A.-based law firm of over 400 lawyers which handles land-use entitlements for developers across the Western U.S.
Q. Do the supporters of Measure D have a financial interest in passage?
A. Supporters of Measure D are grassroots citizens. There is no perceived benefit to them other than preserving the master plan to protect the future livability of the community.
Q. Would Measure D eliminate the City Council’s role in zoning decisions?
A. Measure D continues to require the City Council to approve or disapprove all regular and major zoning changes. Voters would only have a right to ratify or reject Council approval on ten specific types of major changes to the master plan.
Q. Would voters be able to initiate new zoning changes under Measure D?
A. No.
Q. Would Measure D affect renovations or additions by homeowners on their lots?
A. No. Homeowner applications would continue to go to the Planning Department and Planning Commission.
Q. Would Measure D affect business renovations or expansions?
A. Business expansions for commercial use on existing commercial property are not affected and would not go to voters. Businesses could also seek annexation and rezoning of up to two non-commercial acres for expansion without voter approval. Measure D does not affect new businesses locating to Mission Viejo’s commercial properties.
Q. Would Measure D “kill jobs?”
A. This is a scare tactic by D opponents. Measure D does not burden existing businesses nor discourage new businesses in Mission Viejo’s ample commercially zoned properties. The strong business climate in Newport Beach and Yorba Linda is proof.
Q. Would “local control” be reduced?
A. Local control would be enhanced, because in addition to Council approval, some matters would require a second level of local control, voter ratification.
Q. Would subsidized housing matters be turned over to the State?
A. This is another false scare tactic by D opponents. State affordable housing law already pre-empts non-compliant actions on affordable housing by either the City Council or by voters.
Q. Would elections on major zoning change requests by developers/property owners be at city expense?
A. The party/applicant requesting major zoning changes pays the election expense.
Q. Would property rights be affected?
A. Measure D helps protect the property rights of homeowners by preserving the nationally acclaimed Mission Viejo master plan that they “bought” with their homes. It also protects the property rights of commercial property owners who don’t want their interests impacted by future adjacent non-conforming uses. It also protects the right of land purchasers to use their property as provided under the existing Mission Viejo master plan, which constitutes a community compact for the mutual benefit of all residents and business owners.
Larry:
I just open my mail and saw the latest ” Load of Poop” on the elections. Topping all of the pieces of “garbage” was the flier on Measure D from Ury’s minions. It features some of the most despicable characters in Mission Viejo–I call them—– The FOOLS, FRAUDS, and FAKERS.
I am in the process of categorizing those listed into these three categories–The Fools, The Frauds, and The Fakers. This is how I have started to sort them out. I would be interested in your take—
THE FOOLS
Ziggy
Joyce Saltzgiver–better know as the flip floooop queen
Trish Kelley—who also turns in mileage slips for spelling bees
Bill Craycraft (Convicted of Brown Act Violations)
Ron Ruef—dizzy at best
Nancy Cho–another Chamber voice in the wilderness
THE FRAUDS
Roger Faubel ( He was the front man for the folks that started this mess and has consistently been and exploiter of Mission Viejo)
Frank Ury–has sold his soul to the highest bidders–and Lance MacLean
Reed Royalty–self interest is his only motivation and supported an airport at MCAS El Toro
Peter Bastone—though he could be a FOOL also–front for tax exempt entity
Donna Varner–Will front for $$$
South Orange County Chamber of Commerce–who only promote themselves–not business in MV
Geof Willis–better known as “Clown Candidate Willis” –Ury’s Boy
Dennis O’Connor–a moral leaper from the Real Estate crowd
Tony Mazeika—local real estate “Farmer”
Steven Fish–Saddleback Unified School District—poised to sell off school sites for high density housing
Tanya McElhaney–does she even exist any more–X Chamber, X Leisure World, ??
THE FAKERS
Sherri Butterfield (Convicted of Brown Act Violations)
Susan Withrow (Convicted of Brown Act Violations)
Sharon Cody–in your pocket for her own causes
Marion Butterfield–along for the ride–yuk
Wow Long Time, what a thoughtful, inciseful, and factual post. I look forward to many more of your valuable contributions to the Juice.
I apologize in advance for the long post, but since Brad Morton apparently is not allowing my posts at the Dispatch (gotta love freedom of the press), as a six year land use attorney, I thought I’d offer my two cents on why I oppose Measure D [my comments are in brackets after the Q & A]:
Q. Have other cities adopted right-to-vote measures?
A. Voters in Orange County’s two most affluent cities, Newport Beach and Yorba Linda, passed similar measures requiring voter approval of major zoning changes. Those cities have beautiful neighborhoods, top-rated schools and vibrant business communities. MV’s Measure D is modeled after the unchallenged Yorba Linda ordinance.
[I agree that Measure D is similar to Yorba Linda’s Measure B – in fact it looks like most of Measure D was cut and pasted from it. That alone tells me that not a lot of independent thought went into drafting the measure as evidenced by the requirement that a majority of the electorate approve a project subject to Measure D – a near impossibility. It is not so similar to Newport’s measure which only applies to very large development projects, rather than even minor zone changes that Measure D would cover.]
Q. Who are the opponents of Measure D?
A. Opponents are primarily those who could profit from more homes and population. The Association of Realtors would benefit from more houses and is paying for slick anti-D mailers and street signs. Also involved in the anti-D campaign is the public relations consultant for the developer which tried to buy Casta del Sol Golf Course for high density housing. Many wealthy special interests stand to financially benefit from more urbanization.
[The Association of Realtors also includes commercial and industrial interests that will be hugely impacted by Measure D’s requirement that a majority of the electorate pass any project, resulting in stifled development. The Chamber of Commerce, which represents BUSINESS interests is also firmly opposed. The Orange County Register has also come out against Measure D, as has the Orange Coutny BUSINESS Council. I know this is incovenient for the Measure D supporters spinning the opponents as in the pocket of residential developer interests. Ironically, the BIA, which represents residential interests (the one group you would think would be most against Measure D if it really was aimed at preventing residential development), has stated it is not opposing Measure D – another inconvient fact the pro-Measure D folks don’t want to address.]
Q. Does the anti-D group have a spokesperson?
A. The lead spokesperson against D at a recent Cox TV forum was an attorney from an L.A.-based law firm of over 400 lawyers which handles land-use entitlements for developers across the Western U.S.
[The poster makes it sound as if an attorney with nearly 25 years of land use experience is a bad thing. And he’s based in the Orange County office, not the big bad slick LA office. He’s also a long-time Mission Viejo resident who has been active in the community through his kids’ sports, and not an outsider as the poster would lead you to believe. By the way, he’s also represented property owners against government eminent domain abuses for years.]
Q. Would Measure D eliminate the City Council’s role in zoning decisions?
A. Measure D continues to require the City Council to approve or disapprove all regular and major zoning changes. Voters would only have a right to ratify or reject Council approval on ten specific types of major changes to the master plan.
[A colossal waste of valuable city resources is requiring the Council to go through the motions for a project that has no chance of passing because of the voter requirement that will make it nearly impossible for any project subject to Measure D to pass. I would also quibble with the phrases “major zoning changes” and “major changes” as Measure D would apply to a zone change for open space or residential property, regardless of the size of the parcel.]
Q. Would Measure D affect renovations or additions by homeowners on their lots?
A. No. Homeowner applications would continue to go to the Planning Department and Planning Commission.
[Measure D could apply if the renovations or additions require a zone change.]
Q. Would Measure D affect business renovations or expansions?
A. Business expansions for commercial use on existing commercial property are not affected and would not go to voters. Businesses could also seek annexation and rezoning of up to two non-commercial acres for expansion without voter approval. Measure D does not affect new businesses locating to Mission Viejo’s commercial properties.
[I agree with the first point, but the rest of the post is not entirey forthcoming. If an existing business attempts to expand into open space or residential-zoned property, Measure D requires a costly vote, regardless of the size of the parcel. If a new commercial business seeks to relocate to existing residential, open space, or a 2+ acre industrial parcel, Measure D also kicks in.]
Q. Would Measure D “kill jobs?”
A. This is a scare tactic by D opponents. Measure D does not burden existing businesses nor discourage new businesses in Mission Viejo’s ample commercially zoned properties. The strong business climate in Newport Beach and Yorba Linda is proof.
[The attempted connection to Yorba Linda and Newport Beach is factually-deficient and has no logical connection. If frequent zone changes are required and trigger Measure D, existing businesses will not expand and new businesses will not relocate to Mission Veijo (they will go to neighboring Lake Forest, Aliso Viejo, or RSM where costly elections are not required) which will ultimately eliminate valuable jobs. Personally, I would rather not take the risk.]
Q. Would elections on major zoning change requests by developers/property owners be at city expense?
A. The party/applicant requesting major zoning changes pays the election expense.
[If it’s a public party requesting the change, the election cost would be borne by the taxpayers.]
Q. Would property rights be affected?
A. Measure D helps protect the property rights of homeowners by preserving the nationally acclaimed Mission Viejo master plan that they “bought” with their homes. It also protects the property rights of commercial property owners who don’t want their interests impacted by future adjacent non-conforming uses. It also protects the right of land purchasers to use their property as provided under the existing Mission Viejo master plan, which constitutes a community compact for the mutual benefit of all residents and business owners.
[Major land use policy documents need to be able to adapt to the changing times. I am against poorly-planned large scale residential developments that will overly burden traffic and city services. However, redevelopment of aging commercial centers often leads to new business and increased benefits to the city through more tax money and jobs. The legislative process should allow projects to be brought to the Council, allow public comment, and, if necessary, the referendum process exists to target particular unpopular projects (with a simple majority of the voters and not a majority of the electorate that Measure D requires). Measure D flips that process and ensures that little, if any, development will ever occur in Mission Viejo, inevitably resulting in blight and increased crime down the line. We already have several safeguards to ensure that the Council does what we feel is best for our great community. Measure D is unnecessary and hurts our businesses.]
For those who do not live in Mission Viejo, and are confused by the first comment, let me report that we received a 12 x 14 inch campaign flyer that lists residents opposing Measure D.
While I personally know the vast majority of the people in the mailer who were listed by Long Time resident, and can confirm the Brown Act violations as stated, one comment I can add is that there are less than 100 names on the list while over 8,000 residents signed petitions to protect the city’s master plan as reported in the above Dispatch article.
One name included in the flyer is Joyce Saltzgiver who is listed as “Board Member, Casta Del Sol Homeowners Association.” An unnamed source has told me that she has been chastized by the HOA president for listing her Board position on that mailer in that they never discussed, nor granted permission for her to represent the Board in this election Ballot Measure. They have not taken a postion on Measure D. Over 1,000 residents of that HOA and neighboring homeowners of Cypress Point and Finnisterra are worried about a possible (future) re-use of their golf course. Frank Ury lied in his ballot rebuttal. OC Superior Court Judge Rodriguez removed some of Frank Ury’s phony text. No one in MV was “conned” into signing the petitions.
Newbie.
As we are heading out the door [to spend money stimulating the local economy] I will not be able to respond to each of your points. That being said, let me point you to Howard Jarvis who himself had similar ambigious wording in the Prop 13 voter requirements. Better yet, check out the CA Supreme Court case Amadore County Employee Association where they rule that it only applies to those voting in the election, not 30,000 plus as in our city’s registered voters.
Larry,
I’m glad to hear that you’re “going local.” Thanks for the heads up on the court case, but I was unable to find it through an online search. If you have a case cite, I would much appreciate it when you have the time.
Larry,
While you’re looking up the case for me – here’s my point on the “electorate” vs. “voters” issue. Under statutory construction rules, “[w]hen different language is used in the same connection in different parts of a statute it is presumed the legislature intended a different meaning and effect.” (McCarthy v. Bd. of Fire Commrs. (1918) 37 Cal.App.495, 497; Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1117.) Conversely, when a word is repeatedly used in a statute, its meaning will be the same throughout. (McCarthy at p. 498.) Thus, if the drafter(s) of Measure D had used “voters” in both Section 4.1 and 11.1, then it would clearly apply to a majority of the voters voting in that election. However, since the measure uses different words for the same concept, it is presumed that they have different meanings. “Electorate” means a majority of the registered voters, so “voters” would mean a majority of those voting in the election. Dry stuff, I know, but absolutely critical to the interpretation of Measure D’s voting requirement. I am happy to review your authority, but if it doesn’t address two different words to reference voting, it won’t be applicable to this case.
Newbie:
Nice dribble–but as you know neither Newport Beach or Yorba Linda have been challenged–so all your nonsense is just that–lawyer dribble. Nice attempt to divert things though–Sophomoric at best I would say.
So, I now add you to the Fools, Frauds, and Fakers list–officially.
Long Time,
You’re right. My drivel (I mean dribble), which laid out the legal and factual arguments counter to Mr. Morton’s Q & A, complete with citations to Measure D itself, as well as legal citations supporting my arguments – totally Sophomoric. It is hardly as good as your Fools, Frauds, and Fakers list which added an awful lot to the discussion (I expect I will receive some sort of citation or plaque in the mail?). I am honored to be a part of such an All-Star cast. I apologize for not meeting your high standards. Keep up the good work. You are an excellent spokesperson for the Yes on D supporters.
Interesting reading. One side clearly knows the law. The other side’s main argument is that they got the required number of signatures to get this on the ballot. Given the average voters level of understanding on any issue, that makes those signatires completely worthless.
LBM.
One side clearly knows the law? Which side?
Spokesman representing the YEs and the NO camps were each attorney’s.
I guess you were referring to Joyce S who was chastised by the Casta Board president for listing herself as a member of the Casta Board in a flyer without Casta permission.
Or are you saying that Newbie doesn’t know the law. I am getting confused by your bias.
Each of them passed a bar exam . Did they take different tests?
I always find LBM–(Bob Bruchmann) amusing, arrogant and self centered. Best summarized as a Narcissist.
To think he is the only one that understand issues is astounding. His disdain for the citizens, and voters indicates he has some beatific visions. NOT !!
Perhaps Bob should get in touch with the real world. Of course that would result in the same experience he received from the SRA !!!
I am a M.V. citizen that takes Voting seriously.
I’ve gone everywhere to get a clear answer on 2 questions, and NO ONE Knows the Answers –
1.) Will passing D allow anything to be built that Not Passing D would have made it unlawful to build? (AKA Does Passing D overrule the “Master Plan”)
2.) What kind of Questions concerning “the Plans” will the citizens be Voting on in the future Elections? (AKA example: Shall the New Building Plan that the Council Passed be built while retaining the existent Golf Course, or Not? – in other words allow new building to destroy the golf coarse, but not stop the new building.)
From What I’ve read, and I’m not a lawyer, but the FULL TEXT of Measure D seems to jump around with vaguely defined “wording” that didn’t assure me that none of the above items wouldn’t happen. Because of this, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that I won’t vote for anything that over rules the Mission Viejo Master Plan Rules, and THUS my major Question above asks just that. Will “D” Over-rule the Master Plan?
It seems that Measure D allows the citizens of this City to “Vote” on Projects, but depending on how the Questions are Proposed these Elections could very well limit the power of those elections and the citizens votes. The actual “Votes” Might just over-rule what the citizens really are wanting to vote against, Like NO Building at ALL on the Golf coarse Property, or other similarly type future proposals – It seems today there are political cons in everything we see on the Ballots now-a-days – Worded to make the people believe they are getting something they aren’t.
Politics is dirty business and I just wanted to know what Measure D is about (in simple language) and what assurances the above type of things aren’t going to happen.
I went to City Hall and they said they are Neutral (like the Swiss I was told) about this item and couldn’t comment on what would “happen” and they weren’t able to give me answers to my questions. Just for the record I told the City Hall person that although the Swiss are Neutral, It didn’t STOP them from accepting GOLD stolen from others by the Nazis. You can make the possible correlation to any people who want to steal and undo our city from that, if you want. Bottom line is Both sides say basically the same things to each other.
What is your take on the Questions I have asked, and my possible assumptions?
Thanks
Chris.
If you are a resident of MV, and are concerned with preserving the Master Plan, you already have the answer. If Measure D passes it will provide the highest degree of protection in that it will now have two levels of scrutiny. The city attorney did not find any fault in the Measure as confirmed by his impartial analysis.
As I suggest to anyone inquiring about ballot measures, and I have issued my vote recommendations, I tell voters to follow the money. Who is funding the specific measures?
In this case you have local residents without any financial benefit whose only goal is to preserve our community while the heavily funded opposition is full of special interests. As of now I have received four costly glossy brochures and several voter slates opposing this local citizen effort.
Why are they spending around $100,000 in this election?
To clarify one of your words. We are under a General Plan. The MV Master Plan was the original document from the MV Company when our city was first created where they spelled out the number of houses, etc.
This is a transparent land grab by special interests groups and their councilman puppet. A vote yes keeps the special interest groups out and away from the over crowding of our master plan community. Recall Frank Ury.
Quick question: If I support the future redevelopment of the La Paz/Marguerite commercial area into a modern vibrant “Town Center” to include multi-storey buildings with residential apartments above commercial businesses etc. with walkable, bikeable amenities and a sense of place instead of the ugly, wastefull state of the existing property, should I vote Yes or No on D? In other words, is what I describe above an allowable development under he existing zoning rules or would it trigger a vote by the electorate?