Sounding Board -- Tom Egan

The uniform code that Costa Mesa imposes on minimum lot size is

reminiscent of the code that Procrustes, the mythical robber, imposed on

his victims: The victim was made to lie on Procrustes’s bed. If the

victim was too short, he was stretched on a rack until he fit the bed. If

the victim was too long, well, the excess length was deleted.

It’s not that a given residential lot size requirement is either

reasonable or not reasonable. It’s that, no matter what it is, it cannot

possibly fit every situation.

For example, the developer of the old El Camino shopping center site

says his residential project will only work at the former higher density,

not the new lower density of the new medium-density standard (“New

standards may block home project,” May 9). The neighbors support the

developer, regardless of the standards.

There are, of course, good arguments for uniformity in codes. The

arguments needn’t be repeated here. Rather, maybe it’s time to revisit

the arguments in favor of zoning that is not uniform.

First, Costa Mesa is not a uniform city. New Town -- centered on South

Coast Metro -- is much different from Old Town -- centered on Triangle

Square. Eastside is different from Westside. And then there is the matter

of the character of the city as a whole.

While there are a significant number of Costa Mesans who prefer the

predictability of uniform standards, there are perhaps more who enjoy

variety and nonconformity, and relish that we are not Irvine in the

uniformity department.

Second, driving around town, we can see that we have nonuniformity in

practice, even with uniform development standards, because older

properties exist which have been grandfathered into what is called “legal

nonconforming” status.

Third, rigidly applying the newer standards to the older areas that

were developed under different standards imposes constraints on infill

development and redevelopment of the older areas. These standards may not

be needed by every old neighborhood. If so, their unneeded cost may

prevent replacing obsolete housing and businesses with more up-to-date

buildings.

So it is appropriate to ask if there are practical ways to regulate

land use without resorting to the Procrustean approach.

In fact, there are myriad approaches. Some cities take the approach

just opposite to citywide uniform zoning; they let neighborhoods make

zoning decisions for themselves. For example, St. Paul, Minn., has 17

resident-elected District Councils that have jurisdiction over zoning.

Other city governments stop short of devolving that much power.

Dayton, Ohio, and Portland, Ore., governments give their neighborhood

associations significant influence over neighborhood-oriented planning

decisions, but retain final say.

Another approach is to have an array of standards from which

neighborhoods could select the most applicable for a given situation,

then recommend it to the City Council for adoption.

Thus, there is precedent for Costa Mesa to let its codes fit the

neighborhood, rather than fitting the neighborhood to the codes. Given

the “don’t tread on me” attitude of most Costa Mesans, maybe it’s time to

consider giving Procrustes the boot and adopting a fine-tuned approach.

* TOM EGAN is a Westside resident.