City zigzags on design review

Win some, lose some. That’s the message this week, with the refusal of the Coastal Commission to overturn city approvals of the “dip house,” which will be built in a low-lying lot that residents say often has water running through it, and the City Council’s rejection of a previously approved 8,000-square-foot-plus hillside residence.

Why one project that was loudly criticized will be built, while another one that sailed through the design review board was assailed by the city manager as “against the city plan” is something of a mystery.

City officials and commissioners seem to zigzag as they make their way through the thicket of issues and projects that come before them. It is no easy task.

Planning commissioners and design review board members have to wear two hats -- they have to consider the merits of each project individually, as well as apply the rules that govern all. Solomon would find himself scratching his head over it all.

Neighbors want “protection” from over-building and “in-your-face” development that alters their own personal landscape. They want “mansionization” and “mansionizers” cut down to size.

Property owners want to build their dream homes and, of course, maximize the value of their land. The single-family home is the most important investment a person can make, and the impetus to “max out” the return is extraordinary and also natural.

Owners take it personally when their dreams are “dissed” by residents looking at development plans from the outside in.

It’s especially daunting when there seems to be little rhyme or reason to the outcome.

All this comes as the design review task force is seeking to bring some sense of predictability to the often-contentious process. This project comes none too soon in a city that is built-out, with older homes -- and residents -- butting up against newcomers and those who simply want a better way of life for themselves and their families.

The task force has a lot of good ideas, but many of them will cost money the city simply does not have. One idea calls for individual neighborhood development standards, which will, of course, bring new rounds of argument on all sides. Another idea would bring more staff people into the process to try to get all the players on the same page.

There’s another, cheaper, way to change the head-butting behavior -- raise the level of discourse to one of civility.

While it may seem simplistic to ask people to “play nice,” it’s a start.