Guest Editorial
By Bill Wainwright
Favoritism trumps principle in
"The Council clearly jettisoned principle for
something else."
In
the past few months, something very troubling has risen to the surface of
local politics: the role of favors and favoritism in Council decisions.
A recent letter to the Gazette brought this home. The
writer was upset that the Council approved a request to rezone a sizeable piece
of property from open space to residential when, in a similar situation, the
last Council had denied a request to add a second story to a home because the
original permit limited it to one. The letter read'; in effect, "why deny
the one and not the other?"
I
was on the Council for the second story case, and still feel we made the right
decision. As a Council member, I was guided by the importance of community
interest over personal interest. In land use decisions, I followed the principle
"do no harm," i.e., grant no exceptions to existing zoning that did
arm either to neighbors or to the community. With the proposed second story, I
felt the interests of the neighbors,
especially the closest neighbor whose home the second story would have
overshadowed, deserved protection.
In its recent decision to allow construction of
several residences on a piece of property zoned open space, the Council clearly
jettisoned principle for something else. They "did harm" both to the
neighborhood (the press reported neighbors came out in force 'over the issue),
and to he community as a whole, as was suggested in another Gazette letter. In
defending the Council's action, the Mayor reportedly said, "zoning is
not permanent." That second letter writer, concerned about the community,
worried in effect that if the Mayor feels that way, “none of our open space is
safe.”
Today's Council voted unanimously (with one
abstention) to overthrow existing rules to develop open space when, in denying
the addition of a second story to a house, the previous Council had voted not
to overturn the rules. What changed?
A City Council action a few months back provides the
answer.
Last Spring, neighbors appealed a project to the
Council after the Planning Commission had granted variances and special use
permits that, in their view, "did harm" to the neighborhood. The variances
were to move three sides of a proposed multi-family structure closer to
neighboring residences than the zoning code allows. One use permit was to allow
one-car covered garage space per unit when the new Specific Plan and the zoning
code call for two. Another use permit was to allow three dwelling units on a
5,000 square-foot lot where otherwise only two were permitted.
Permission was also requested to demolish a sound
residential structure on the property to make way for those units,
notwithstanding a provision in the recently passed Specific Plan that prefers
renovation over demolition.
Over repeated objections by the
neighbors throughout a year-long planning process, and despite an appeal joined
by others in the community, including this writer, the Council unanimously
voted to allow the demolition, variances, and special use permits.
QUESTION: aside from departures from existing zoning,
what is common to both cases?
ANSWER: substantial campaign contributions to
Council members by the same interested party.
Favor and favoritism now determine Council decisions,
not principle. Personal interest and money to get re-elected, not community
interest, are what guide this Council. Given that, the outlook for
.
.