Mailbag: Op-ed piece mischaracterized smart-growth as no-growth

How unfortunate that the chairwoman of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce has set it against the people of Costa Mesa (“Commentary: Fairview Developmental Center’s future belongs on the ballot,” May 27)! Not only has she grossly mis-characterized the citizens’ popular smart-growth initiative as “no-growth,” she further falsely implies that sports and recreation will not thrive if the initiative passes.

It’s a broad leap of logic that Jennifer Farrell makes. First, she supposes that if the initiative passes there will be no new projects. In fact, the initiative ordinance requires a public vote only when the City Council changes the laws that govern development to accommodate a major project with significant adverse impacts. Any project, regardless of size, that meets the standards of applicable law, would be routinely approved, because it wouldn’t even come within the terms of the smart-growth initiative.

Second, Ms. Farrell assumes that the people of Costa Mesa don’t want any new development and, therefore, will vote against all projects, good or bad. She ought to have more faith in her neighbors. Our city has grown substantially since the turn of this century under the present General Plan. And that General Plan still makes room for much more growth.

Ms. Farrell proposes a development-impact fee for recreation at Fairview Development Center in the event Costa Mesa is fortunate enough to acquire the property. Fair enough, even though this City Council is reluctant to require anything of developers beyond compliance with state law. They declined, for example, to pass an impact fee for library services, despite the documented need.

However, they might pass a sports and recreation fee, since Mayor Steve Mensinger is doubtless depending on active sports fans to support his bid for re-election this November.

But what has this to do with the citizens’ initiative? Ms. Farrell’s truly creative leap of logic comes in the form of a false assertion that the initiative ordinance means no growth, which would mean no development impact fees, which would mean no new recreation facilities at Fairview Development Center.

Bunk! If this City Council wants recreation facilities at Fairview, it certainly can find the money to pay for them. The people of Costa Mesa should have the right to accept or reject changes in the law to accommodate major development projects. This right is independent of any expenditure on sports and recreation.

Eleanor Egan

Costa Mesa

New development standards would harm quality of life

Re “13 New 2-story houses approved for Eastside Costa Mesa,” (May 25): The Costa Mesa Planning Commission unanimously approved and heaped high praise on this proposed development. What the Planning Commission did not consider, however, is compatibility with the existing neighborhood. I live on Vista Baya, close by the proposed development. Here are a few differences between our street (Now) and the proposed development (New):

Lot size: 10,000 square feet (Now), 6,000 square feet (New).

Street width: 40 feet (Now), 22 feet (New).

Street turnaround: 90-foot circle (Now), small “hammerhead” (New).

On-street parking: Plentiful (Now), limited (New).

Sidewalks: Yes (Now), no (New).

Grass parkway around street: Yes (Now), no (New).

Architecture: Custom homes (now), all basically the same (new).

Homeowner fees: No (Now), Yes (New).

As the few remaining empty lots come up for development, the Planning Commission needs to consider their fit with the existing neighborhood. Here, the numbers prove they failed to do their job.

Richard Alexander

Costa Mesa

Veterans cemetery proposal insults

I was struck by the proposal by the special interest group to move the veterans cemetery proposed for the Great Park to a much less desirable location (“Land-swap proposal for a new veterans cemetery site rejected by Irvine council,” April 20). The move was not in the best interest of the American veterans who have served their county and preserved American value for us all.

The preservation of the cemetery at its present location is in the best interest of our American veterans. They earned their space the hard way, by putting their lives on the line. Any alternate location to benefit the land developers is not acceptable under any circumstance.

The claims that a veterans cemetery would disrupt the feng shui in the area are insulting. There already exist thousands of bone fragments, scattered throughout the area. Eighty-four Marines died there in a plane crash in the 1970s.

I would like to congratulate the Irvine City Council members who supported the veterans cemetery for preserving our American heritage.

Larry Bales

Tustin