The light and dark of life

High density and traffic burdens are not the only worrisome

precedents the massive 1901 Newport condo project would set. As part

of the public hearing, the Costa Mesa City Council will consider a

“threshold of significance” for shade and shadow impacts to

residential properties from new construction. The threshold proposed

by the environmental report for the project says, “A significant

impact occurs when the proposed project casts shade or shadow onto

sensitive land uses in adjacent off-site areas for more than two

hours between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.”

This is not a Costa Mesa standard, but one made up for the

occasion. Before proceeding with the hearing on 1901 Newport, it is important for the city of Costa Mesa to adopt its own standard, one

that is appropriate to our city and reflects our current residential

environment and quality of life.

The author of this environmental report cites a Los Angeles

threshold as support for the one proposed for Costa Mesa. The L.A.

threshold says only three hours of sunlight between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.

is OK. The proposal for Costa Mesa says it’s OK for new construction

to shade a front yard all but three hours a day. Both instances

assume three hours of sunlight a day is a suitable local standard.

This is not appropriate or acceptable for Costa Mesa. We are not in

as intense of an urban environment as Los Angeles. Such a standard

allows a much greater negative impact to Costa Mesa’s quality of life

than is befitting our environment.

Costa Mesa residents who have front yards, whether renters or

owners, use and take pride in the outdoor area available to them.

South facing residences that enjoy full sun all year round should be

protected from such a radical loss of winter sunlight. That is about

2/3 of the day’s sunlight, gone. Front yards should be protected from

shadows greater than those from a two-story home across the street.

Residents should have a reasonable expectation that development

around them will be consistent with what is allowed by zoning and the

city’s general plan. It’s sometimes a case of buyer beware, because

what’s planned may be different than what is currently in the

neighborhood. However, in the specific instance of the Bernard Street

properties, there is no way they could have anticipated this change

because the general plan and zoning for the property across the

street didn’t allow it.

We will ask the City Council, “Please don’t adopt such a

restrictive limit for Costa Mesa.” Residents want to save the

suburban character that we value so much. If the council approves the

environmental report for 1901 Newport without changes, it would be a

de facto adoption of this inappropriate standard. As a city, we

should set our own standard first, and then evaluate project

applications to see if they comply with the standards we deem

appropriate for our city.

ROBIN LEFFLER

Vice president, Costa Mesa Citizens for Responsible Growth

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Costa Mesa Citizens for Responsible Growth, which

is fighting the condo project planned for 1901 Newport Blvd., has

been sued by the project’s developer.