Costa Mesa needs to find ‘harmony and compatibility’

Chris Kerins

I am writing to voice my support for the Vida family of Sumatra

Place whose plans for a second-story addition were rejected by the

Planning Commission (“Commissioners reject home-addition plan,”

Wednesday). I sense our city is teetering on the edge of a slippery

slope called “Harmony and Compatibility.”

The key issue is that our code asks for subjective criteria:

Harmony and Compatibility. Defining these terms is not the solution,

eliminating them is. Even if one could come to a consensus for the

definition of these terms, what is the context? Harmonious with the

immediate neighbors? Compatible with the street, the neighborhood or

Mesa Verde? Or perhaps a new design should be harmonious with the

ideal Costa Mesa in my mind.

That is my goal as I wind up a renovation of my 1926 Eastside

bungalow. Should I have instead made it harmonious with my 1960s

Ranch-style neighbor? Or perhaps with the drab-style house with chain

link fencing across the way?

Each new addition and building should add positive character to

the neighborhood, not be restricted to the status quo. If good design

is what we as a city want, perhaps a design review committee with

trained designers and architects is the way to go. That way, the

process can be guided rather than guessed at.

Which gets me back to the point of this. The bottom line of giving

subjective terms like “harmonious” and “compatible” to city staff and

officials just gives them license to say, “I don’t like it.” What

homeowner or even architect can guess what is in someone else’s head?

Commissioner Walt Davenport is right on target being concerned

that they are relying on a subjective part of the code, yet he voted

to reject the plan. The commission should instead be rejecting that

line of the code. And, Councilman Gary Monahan, a growing family in a

three-bedroom house cannot afford to test the code in court. The city

must do the right thing instead.

* CHRIS KERINS is a Costa Mesa resident.