1901 Newport returns to council

Deirdre Newman

The staff report is a whopping 192 pages.

The report’s thickness speaks volumes about how long the

contentious debate over high-density condominiums being developed at

1901 Newport Blvd. has gone on.

The council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, will rehear the

project tonight after having approved it in April.

The hearing could finally bring closure or it could continue the

uncertainty over an issue that has exposed a chasm between those who

believe the downtown area can accommodate high density and those that

fear the repercussions will send the city, which still clings to its

small-town charm, hurling toward an urban future.

“Just because Costa Mesa is built out, it doesn’t mean we should

build up,” Mesa Verde resident Gayle Spinks said. “I don’t think it’s

in keeping with the city we have.”

Mayor Gary Monahan suggests continuing the issue because he has

heard that Rutter Development, which created the project, might file

a claim against the city because the project has dragged on for so

long.

“The [environmental report] was public in January. We are now in

August,” Monahan said. “Whether we approve or don’t approve it, I

expect us to be sued. We’re in a no-win situation. Whichever side

prevails, the other side is going to sue the city, and I believe,

because I have not seen [Rutter’s] claim, that it has to do with

timing [and] that this hearing should have been done several months

ago.”

David Eadie of Rutter Development did not return calls for comment

on Friday. No claim had been filed by Friday.

THE CONCERNS

The project calls for Rutter to build the four-story condo complex

in the parking lot of the property that now hosts the Spanish

mission-style 1901 Newport building. A Vegas-style nightclub will be

added to the building later this year.

Robin Leffler, representing Citizens for Responsible Growth, and

Councilman Allan Mansoor finally convinced the full City Council that

there was enough new information to warrant a rehearing in early

June. Both had concerns about density, and the citizens group faulted

the project’s environmental report for being inconsistent, especially

in the shade and shadow analysis.

Since the council reviewed the project in April, Rutter

Development has changed its plans, increasing the setback distance

from Bernard Street to the north of the property to reduce shadow

effects from the 50-foot high condominium buildings. The shade/shadow

analysis for the final environmental report for this revised plan

does not consider the shadow effects on six Bernard Street

residences.

Leffler dismissed the change as insufficient. The citizens group’s

contention that front yards on Bernard Street will get half as much

sun with the condos as they would otherwise is significant, she said.

“It’s really not a change,” Leffler said. “They’ve technically

massaged the shadow situation so it’s off the property line for the

required amount of time, without ever admitting it was on the

property to begin with.”

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

When the council granted the rehearing, it also requested that an

independent party review the environmental report in response to

claims about its inconsistencies. The city contracted with Costa

Mesa-based the Planning Center at a cost of $5,000.

The center found that the report complied with the California

Environmental Quality Act and the environmental analysis conducted

was fully supported by substantial evidence, as state law requires.

The center also pointed out that varying opinions among experts don’t

make an environmental report inadequate.

Leffler maintains that some of the contradictions in the report

involve fact, not opinion.

“There are things that have been established by experts, and

length of shadow is a physical fact,” she said.

TRAFFIC EFFECTS

Other residents are apprehensive about the traffic effects the

project will generate. Spinks thinks the city will be forced to make

unpalatable choices, such as acquiescing on the 19th Street and

Gisler Avenue bridges, which the city wants eventually removed from

the county’s master plan.

“If the city continues to build at this density, then it’s only

right they would have to help solve the traffic problem, and they

only have one way of doing it -- that’s putting in the 19th Street

bridge and the Gisler ... bridge,” Spinks said.

The project does have its supporters.

In April, resident Andrew McNally spoke in favor of the condos. He

said the project is perfectly appropriate for the area.

The traffic report indicates that the project would not result in

significant negative effects so long as measures are incorporated to

alleviate congestion in the area.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The council is also expected to decide how Rutter Development will

fulfill its affordable housing requirements. Rutter has five choices.

The least expensive involves providing eight moderate-income units on

the site and six very-low income units off the site, but within the

Downtown Redevelopment Project Area. The most expensive would be to

provide all the units outside the redevelopment area, which would

increase the requirement to 28 affordable housing units

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa and may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at [email protected].