Planners had just one choice

Now that the City Council, acting as the city’s Redevelopment Agency,

has weighed in on the issue of the proposed added territory on the

Westside, I think this is the right time to clarify the oft-cited

Planning Commission recommendation to include said “territory.”

At its Jan. 27meeting, the Planning Commission did indeed vote to

recommend the added territory, but only after learning for the first

time it had virtually no other choice. After multiple study sessions

and public hearings -- including one especially arranged for the

benefit of the Community Redevelopment Action Committee folks -- the

consultant, Urban Futures, under questioning by several

Commissioners, informed the Commission that it had an “affirmative

obligation to proceed with a recommendation to the Redevelopment

Agency.”

In other words, we couldn’t vote “no”. The City Attorney’s Office

verified this fact. After much discussion and comment by

commissioners, which can best be described as indignant, we did what

we had to do and voted to recommend the preliminary plan.

What was seldom if ever reported was a second motion, approved 5

to 0, to recommend the City Council fully explore the possibility of

a cooperative effort between the city and property owners before

proceeding with the addition of territory to the Redevelopment

Project Area. I added language to this motion that urged the City

Council to understand therevitalization alternative to redevelopment

and evaluate private sector solutions before making a final decision

on the added territory.

All of the above, and more, can be found on pages six through 18

of the Jan. 27 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Among those of us acting that night, I suspect that I am not alone

in applauding the agency’s recent decision regarding this important

issue.

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Bruce Garlich is the chairman of the Costa Mesa

Planning Commission.