Advertisement

Commentary: The point remains: We need new approaches to city development

Share

Re. “Commentary: Candidate misunderstands development laws,” June 6:

This responds to my earlier commentary in the Daily Pilot, “Costa Mesa deserves more thoughtful development,” June 4.

The writer’s premise is that I don’t understand the laws governing a municipality’s control of land use and therefore my considerations are invalid.

Advertisement

However, we are not debating whether there are laws that govern this development oversight. I am stating, very clearly, that we need to take a new look at how we are governing development oversight.

The writer has suggested that the council’s hands are tied by the general plan. What he failed to state is:

• The general plan is a dynamic document. In the recent public hearings leading up to this year’s review of it, many people commented and provided input that supports what I wrote. So, in fact, I agree with the writer. Let’s change the general plan to modify development in the manner I have introduced. That means better analysis of the effect on the neighboring community, more community input and affordable-housing considerations.

• Costa Mesa’s City Council majority has a long history of voting for variances and amendments to allow for development that does not fit the general plan. Surely, this ongoing process of review can incorporate a greater consideration and mitigation of community harm, allowances for affordable housing and a community benefits agreement.

• The writer is incorrect that community benefit agreements are inapplicable to older, developed cities. Los Angeles has adopted such agreements. In Anaheim, residents and supporters advocated for a community benefit agreement in the Platinum Triangle, and in Santa Ana, residents rallied together for one in the Transit Zoning Code/ Station District. Although neither proposal received enough support, Santa Ana committed to creating an inclusionary housing ordinance in the Station District.

• The writer makes a distinction between landowner and developer, but I see no difference. The developer has to buy the land from the landowner. Then the developer is the landowner. Whoever is developing the land should not be permitted the “up-zoning” for more density and services use unless there are benefits for the Costa Mesa residents who will have to live with the consequences.

I did not suggest the landowner receive the “gain.” I am suggesting there may be additional benefits provided to the residents that can result in a greater long-term benefit to the landowner who considers these other factors and the community at large.

Surely the writer, who lives in Corona del Mar, understands the concept of protecting the quality of life of residents. The same applies to Costa Mesa.

The necessity of having a new view on development and how it can be considered to benefit the developer, the landowner, the residents and the community is the reason we need new voices in Costa Mesa city government.

HAROLD WEITZBERG is a 30-year Costa Mesa resident and a candidate for City Council.

Advertisement