Condominium project is held up

Deirdre Newman

Robin Leffler gave an impassioned speech Monday to City Council

members about why they should reconsider their approval of a

high-density, downtown condominium project.

The Costa Mesa resident implored, she pleaded, she even used

blocks to make her point about shade and shadow effects.

She might as well saved her breath.

The council, with only four members, could not come to a consensus

on whether to rehear the item. So Leffler will be back on May 19 to

try again. And she expressed frustration at the council’s impasse.

“We have a really tight legal case and we did present new

information,” Leffler said. “I don’t understand why two of the City

Council members didn’t understand that it was in the city’s best

interest to rehear this, at least as to go so far as to fix the

environmental documentation.”

Leffler, representing the Costa Mesa Citizens for Responsible

Growth, and Councilman Allan Mansoor both appealed the council’s

April 14 approval of 161 upscale condos at 1901 Newport Boulevard.

The property currently hosts the Spanish mission-style Newport Plaza

building, and a Vegas-style nightclub awaits further approval from

the city’s fire marshal.

The condos will be housed in four, four-story buildings measuring

about 50 feet high. The project also features a two-level underground

parking structure and a five-level above ground parking structure.

The citizens’ group’s main contention with the project is that the

report created to assess environmental effects is inconsistent and

contradictory.

“You can love this project or hate this project, but one thing you

should not do is let the [report] stand,” Leffler beseeched. “It’s

inadequate.”

Leffler honed in on the shadow analysis in the report, which

states that only 20 minutes of a shadow effect would occur in the

front yards of homes on Bernard Street, behind the project, between

10 a.m. and 3 p.m. -- which is not considered a significant problem

by the city.

Using blocks, she demonstrated the group’s opinion that the shadow

effect will last for two to three hours between the same time frame.

Former Mayor Sandra Genis also presented an analysis she did to

supplement the environmental report examining the shadow effect at

other times of the day. “We had repeated requests that we get some

additional time periods shown because all [the report] had was 10

a.m. and noon and 3 p.m. and ... there’s a whole lot more to the day

than that,” Genis said.

Other residents oppose the project because it would require

changes to the city’s general plan.

“It’s setting a precedent on piecemeal zoning,” said Sandy

Johnson.

The burden of proof was on the citizens’ group to show that new

information was available that wasn’t considered during the approval

process. That put developer David Eadie of Rutter Development in the

unfamiliar position of having to defend himself, instead of making

his case for the project.

“I believe the staff has done a thorough job,” Eadie said. “I

don’t believe the shadow issue is true. In fact, I know it isn’t.”

The request for the rehearing fared as well as the council

appointment attempt as motions to rehear it and not to rehear it both

failed because of deadlock.

Councilman Chris Steel, who supported the project when the council

approved it, voted to support a rehearing, as did Mansoor. Steel said

he continues to favor the project, but wants to make sure any

discrepancies in the environmental report are cleared up.

“There’s so many consultants -- everyone has their own take as to

the environmental impacts whether it be density, sunlight, open space

and so on,” Steel said. “There’s so much contention there. The

question is, ‘who do you believe?’ If there is a question there,

let’s look at it, let’s do it right.”