City OKs tweaking of 1901 Newport

Deirdre Newman

COSTA MESA -- Time has not muted the passionate feelings many

residents harbor against the 1901 Newport Blvd. condominium project.

Seven months after city leaders granted a rehearing on the

project, opposition to the high-density condominiums surged through

the council chambers again Tuesday, with vitriol to match, as

residents compared those on the dais to “Hitler” and “left-leaning

liberal pinkos.”

Despite the overwhelming opposition to the high density of the

project -- double what is allowed in the city’s general plan -- the

Redevelopment Agency approved a modified plan that is only slightly

less dense. The Redevelopment Agency is the City Council acting under

a different name.

The approved plan calls for 145 units, 415 parking spaces and a

subsidy of about $1.5 million. The original project proposed 161

units and 415 parking spaces.

The rehearing had the potential of culminating four months of

negotiations among City Manager Allan Roeder, the residents’ group

and the developer to resolve a lawsuit. Instead, it left the

situation murky.

It is unclear yet if this plan is feasible for Rutter Development,

which created the project. Parking is the main concern: Rutter

favored an alternative with 375 spaces. And the option approved does

not automatically require Rutter to drop its lawsuit against the

city, as another would have.

“We’ll see if we can build this project,” said David Eadie,

Rutter’s CEO. “The project is in serious jeopardy, in my opinion.”

Costa Mesa Citizens for Responsible Growth, which was also sued by

Rutter, is amenable to this modified plan, spokeswoman Robin Leffler

said.

‘ROLLER COASTER’ MEETING

The council was faced with deciding among the original project and

three modified plans or scrapping the project altogether and having

Rutter start over again. Instead, the final decision evolved from one

of the modified plans, along with Councilwoman Libby Cowan’s demand

for more parking and Eadie’s request for a higher subsidy.

“It was a roller coaster of a meeting,” Leffler said. “It felt

like a piece of toffee that was pulled one way and then another. In

the end, we got the alternative that we want, but the developer got

more money.”

The city had offered varying amounts of subsidies to Rutter in

exchange for various reductions in density. The alternative that the

Redevelopment Agency approved included a subsidy of $1.36 million,

but Mayor Gary Monahan offered another $162,000 in response to

Eadie’s request.

The project, which calls for four four-story buildings in the

parking lot of the Spanish mission-style property, has been in limbo

since August. Rutter Development sued the City Council and Costa Mesa

Citizens for Responsible Growth last summer, claiming that a

rehearing on the downtown condominium project was granted illegally,

without the required presentation of new evidence.

The approved alternative includes decreasing the building height

of the project along Bernard Street from four stories to three

stories.

Still, the predominant criticism against the three modified plans

on Tuesday was that they didn’t go far enough in reducing density.

“More isn’t always better,” Pamela Frankel said. “What Hitler did

was legal. I don’t think it was necessarily a good idea.”

Others charged the project would add more congestion to what they

perceive as an already unbearable 19th Street-Newport Boulevard

intersection.

“It’s a heck of an intersection,” Barbara Beck said. “I’ll avoid

it. You go there, you might as well plan to have lunch in your car.”

And some railed against the city for offering Rutter the

subsidies. The highest it had offered was $4.31 million.

“The Republican party has three principles: lower taxes, less

government and personal responsibility,” resident Paul Flanagan said.

“When you want to give someone $4 million, is that personal

responsibility? What kind of left-leaning, liberal pinkos are you?”

SUPPORT AMONG OPPOSITION

There was scant support for the project scattered throughout the

vehement objections.

“I support the project for three reasons: revitalization,

revitalization, revitalization,” Bill Turpit said. “New homeowners

will revitalize the area ... and will it anchor hope for

revitalization along the 19th Street corridor.”

Expressing her support for the project, Cowan crystallized the

council’s dilemma when it comes to responding to the community’s

sentiment and following the general plan.

“I find it ironic that here, we’re being asked to adhere to the

general plan when before, for Kohl’s, we were asked not to,” Cowan

said. “You can’t have it both ways. The economic environment and land

values have shifted dramatically since the general plan was adopted

10 years ago, and while there’s a desire to maintain a semblance of

small-town America, we need housing.”

Councilmen Chris Steel and Allan Mansoor dissented. Mansoor tried

a motion earlier in the evening to deny all the modified plans,

forcing Rutter back to the drawing board. That failed 3 to 2 with

Cowan, Monahan and Councilman Mike Scheafer dissenting. Mansoor said

he wanted to see a project within the general plan’s parameters and

expressed indignation at Eadie when he asked for a higher subsidy to

add more parking.

“Because you’re receptive to this, it shows there’s been room all

along,” Mansoor said. “Like you had this card all along, and now,

you’re playing it. I’m appalled.”

Scheafer lauded the approval since the development will provide

home ownership opportunities. He said city leaders might want to take

another look at the general plan in light of the controversy this

project evoked.

“I think it needs to be flexible and allow development that makes

sense, and this wholeheartedly makes sense,” Scheafer said.

Resident Mike Berry, who opposes the project, said some of the

homeowners’ associations, such as the Westside Improvement Assn., are

not satisfied with the council’s decision and “are going to do

whatever they can to alter it.”

On March 8, the Redevelopment Agency will approve an inclusionary

housing program, which will spell out in legal terms how the agency

will provide the subsidy to Rutter.

The subsidy is generated by the project -- it doesn’t come out of

the city’s general fund -- and can only be used on the affordable

housing that is required since the project is in the downtown

redevelopment zone.

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

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