Commentary: Costa Mesa City Council majority got it wrong by denying Plant project

On July 3, just hours before the annual celebration of our forefathers’ treasonous act of serving divorce papers on King George III, the newly constituted Costa Mesa City Council majority declared its own independence by departing from the rules of law and decorum.

But instead of remedying some social injustice or protecting inalienable rights, the three-member union of council members Jim Righeimer, Allan Mansoor and Sandy Genis disregarded our planning and zoning codes and overturned the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Plant, a carefully crafted mixed-use project in SoBeCa designed to enhance one of Costa Mesa’s most vibrant and hip areas.

Of the more than 100 proposals that have come before me as a planning commissioner, this one unequivocally stands above the rest for its thoughtful planning, high-quality design and approach to fulfilling the community’s vision for the area as an entertainment, culture and arts hub.

In addition to providing 62 units of critical housing, the project proposes retail shops and restaurants, community gathering spaces, abundant landscaping, a parking structure and other neighborhood-serving amenities. I expected nothing less from the applicant, Shaheen Sadeghi, who pioneered SoBeCa’s the Lab and the Camp developments.

It is important to note that the project had been fully vetted and reviewed by city staff over the course of several months and a handful of Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Unlike the majority, who seemed to ignore city staff’s responses to each of their stated concerns, council members Katrina Foley and John Stephens properly recognized that project was evaluated consistent with past practices and provided much value to the community.

Regardless of the project’s myriad benefits, the council majority denied the application without regard for sound reasoning, solid public policy or even basic civil discourse. Despite the comprehensive analysis, which determined that the project objectively complied with the city’s parking standards for mixed-use projects, Righeimer offered no actual evidence that the project was “under-parked.”

Mansoor simply objected to the density, even though the project satisfied the requirements of the urban overlay zone and is exactly what was envisioned by the community for this area. Genis just went along with the gang.

What was more appalling than the majority’s weak and unsupported decision, though, was the manner in which this curious threesome conducted the public hearing. All applicants are entitled to a fair hearing and due process, which demands that our elected officials uphold our community’s General Plan — our planning constitution — and the implementing zoning codes and development standards. In a shameful display of governance (or lack thereof), the council majority showed no such decorum or allegiance to our established community standards.

With a safari hunter’s zeal, Righeimer essentially killed the project by attempting to require from the applicant a refundable deposit of $625,000 to the city for an undefined parking structure to secure his vote. What applicant would submit to such an outrageous ultimatum?

Aside from the fact that this kind of exaction from the dais is unjustified — absolutely no analysis of parking has been done by the city even to warrant this speculative demand — it is also wholly inappropriate. We do not treat applicants, or any other person who appears before a city body, this way.

Ultimately, the council majority’s baseless decision unjustly deprived the applicant of a fair hearing and Costa Mesa of a valuable new community asset.

Jeffrey Harlan is a Costa Mesa city planning commissioner and Eastside resident.