Commentary: Candidate misunderstands development laws
Harold Weitzberg’s rambling June 4 commentary (“Costa Mesa deserves more-thoughtful development” leads me to believe he does not have a very good grasp of the laws governing a municipality’s control of land use.
By state law, the city has very limited ability to alter the existing framework for approving new land-use projects or to provide “more thoughtful” and “paced development.”
Government’s ability to alter land-use designations is tightly constrained by state law. Local voters approve a general plan. Any new zoning designations must conform to the requirements of the land use portion of the General Plan. Land parcels zoned before the enactment of the General Plan keep the then-existing zoning designation.
Should the owner of such a parcel wish it rezoned to conform to the existing General Plan the city must usually agree. The city may only make zoning changes that conflict with the General Plan in a limited number of instances where the circumstances comply with state requirements.
If a proposed project meets the zoning requirements and development standards, as set forth in the city codes, the city, by law, cannot prevent the project from proceeding. The only way to change allowed project density or building height is to revise the general plan land use designations and amend city development standard ordinances. The author’s objective cannot be reached by changing the decision-making process for individual projects because the city does not have the authority to make such decisions.
In order to impose an affordable housing requirement on new multi-family housing the city must first pass a statute requiring affordable units be included in all new construction of multi-family housing. Typically such ordinances address definitions of affordable housing, resident qualifications, size of projects covered under the act, governmental monitoring over time, etc.
The author connects building higher projects to damage to qualify of life because of adverse impacts on roads, water, etc. Again the city’s ability to stop development for these reasons is constrained by state law. The city may only prevent the development if the environmental impact report for the project finds a significant adverse impact from the project. If the environmental impact report identifies significant adverse impacts not addressed by the city, citizens may bring legal action.
The Community Benefits Agreement is not applicable to older, developed cities, such as Costa Mesa. It is used for very large, phased developments to be completed over a number of years. Costa Mesa does not include any large areas of undeveloped land.
The purpose of such agreements is not to have the developer “give something in return for zoning.” The purpose is to establish the developer’s obligation to fund and build certain community facilities such as parks, school sites, roads, etc., necessary to such large developments while giving the developer the assurance it will be able to proceed with the agreed development.
Contrary to Weitzberg’s writing, more intense development provides the greatest gain to the landowner, not the developer. Developers must bid against each other for land. As long as there is a market for the final product, the denser the development the more the developer can pay the landowner.
I do not advocate or oppose Weitzberg’s goals. To reach his goals he must fully understand land-use regulations and what changes are practically possible. Of course campaigning on a platform of change the General Plan, and pass an affordable housing law is not likely to attract as many voters as blaming the problem on the incumbents or suggesting residents share the financial cost of affordable housing.
STEVEN R. STRAUSS lives in Corona del Mar.