The Mission Viejo Initiative is designed to protect the community’s living environment. It would require voters’ consent on major amendments passed by the City Council concerning land use laws, if the amendments increase density or congestion.
The City Council could continue to pass the following changes, but consent by a majority of voters would be required if any change:
- Allows designated Open Space to be changed to any other use.
- Allows designated Recreation land to be changed for other than Recreation or Open Space.
- Increases the number of residential units permitted on a residential parcel.
- Divides an existing parcel of land into smaller parcels.
- Allows housing units to be constructed on property designated for only commercial or non-residential uses.
- Converts residential property to another use.
- Converts non-residential property to residential use if density would exceed 6.5 housing units per acre.
- Converts commercial or industrial land to a different use if the aggregate size of all parcels being changed exceeds two acres.
- Allows Public Land to be privately developed within five years after an approval for development.
- Repeals any of the City’s official land use documents: Land Use Policy Map, Land Use Provisions of the MV General Plan, Land Use/Zoning/Subdivision Regulations, Official Zoning Map, Any Specific Plan, or Any Development Agreement.
The voters’ ballot would offer a “YES” or “NO” choice for any of the above proposed changes.
An exception to the required voter approval would exist in cases where state law pre-empts municipalities on the subject of affordable housing.
The petition for the Initiative will need signatures from over ten thousand local voters to be certified by the City Clerk and referred to the City Council for adoption. The Council could instead choose to place the Initiative on a ballot for the decision on adoption.
The Mission Viejo Dispatch endorses the Initiative, but invites all colorable opinions.
.jpg)
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you for publishing a summary of what the initiative involves. As everyone can see, it does not prevent owners from updating or improving their property. With the initiative in place, homeowners will be protected from the type of negative impacts that can be foisted on the community by developers and five council members.
Those who favor endless homebuilding and destruction of the Master Plan may mischaracterize such overdevelopment as “revitalization.” What is “vital” about more traffic, overcrowding, apartments on top of stores, dismantling a golf course and ruining the character of neighborhoods?
Instead of allowing the council to continue overrunning the residents, it’s time for voters to assure decisions are on the basis of a plan’s benefit to everyone.
How do we sign this petition?
[Editor's Note: Volunteers will begin gathering signatures soon at locations with high foot traffic such as grocery stores. The Dispatch will keep readers informed.]
I am a regular contributor to the Dispatch, so I want to make it clear that I do not join in this endorsement, and that I am an individual contributor, not involved in any article selection or endorsements.
I’m not opposed to the initiative, either, at this time. Certainly the city council has gone high-density, pro-developer.
As a former activist for statewide redevelopment reform, I did not actively work for Propositions 90 or 98, which called for ending eminent domain (taking private property for private use) because both went far beyond banning that specific procedure). Both failed, because neither had a comprehensive marketing plan to educate the community and pre-empt the opposition with positive promotion. I’m glad I didn’t waste my time working for them.
Now is the time for Mission Viejo initiative supporters to act, considering that the average residents knows little or noting about code or zoning:
For starters, what is Open Space and what is Recreation usage? What is commercial and what is industrial? Does the initiative mean that if a developer wants to rezone from light industry to retail he needs voter approval? If initiative backers don’t address these kinds of questions, opponents will be happy to do so.
[Editor's Note: Regarding Recreation/Open Space, here is the description from the City's General Plan:
Regarding "Light Industrial," this use is included under the category of "Business Park" in Mission Viejo.
The Initiative separates Major Amendments, which require voter review, from Regular Amendments, which don't. The Major Amendments are listed in the Dispatch article. All other changes are Regular Amendments and do not require voter approval.]
Thanks for the explanation. But it appears voter approval would be required to change from light industrial use to retail use, as this is a major amendment. Wouldn’t retail be a different use? Would voter approval be required to redevelop the Unisys property into a retail shopping center? (New use of this property has been discussed in the past). As I recall the main oppositiion to the Steadfast development was high-density housing, not the Target store.
[Editor's Note: There was significant initial objection to the Target Store because many of the Steadfast opponents realized Target could create much more traffic than Steadfast's proposed housing.
The same issue could arise with the Unisys property. Conversion to Commercial zoning (retail) could create much more traffic than Unisys creates with its Business Park zoning. This additional density in the form of traffic would be an important consideration since the Jeronimo/Los Alisos now carries traffic ratings higher than city goals, and the intersection is projected to see more stress when Lake Forest implements its new General Plan Amendments.
Note, however, no voter approval would be required to convert Unisys to a Walmart (retail), for example, according to Community Services Director Chuck Wilson, because Business Park zoning allows for commercial use. The Business Park zoning on the Steadfast property was not changed to convert it to Target for retail.
As noted by Mr. Pilger their are so many loop holes, and open questions in the initiative it will be easily skirted by council members obligated to the special interests. In addition its fundamentally flawed by its very basic direction of inhibiting property rights.
The real answer is to get rid of council members that are “selling out” Mission Viejo, but don’t punish the good citizens of the city by inhibiting or extracting their very basic property rights.
Editor’s Note: Please see the Editor’s Note to Mr. Pilger’s comment regarding your assertion about loopholes.
Regarding PROPERTY RIGHTS, there is NO inhibition to property rights under the initiative. The initiative would protect, not punish, our good citizens. Remember, property rights are the right to use your property in accord with the existing zoning. They are NOT the right to have your zoning changed. Property rights ARE NOT rights to do anything you like with your property. You can’t put a storefront on your house, a gas station owner can’t change to a corner adult book store, and a shopping center can’t convert to a cement plant. Zoning is a civil compact that protects everyone in America’s premier planned community. Everyone is invested in it and major changes should require community consensus.