Not condoning condo plan

Hello? Am I missing something here (“Rehearing pushed back,”

Tuesday)? Does the Costa Mesa City Council represent the residents of

the city or Rutter Development?

Costa Mesa voters placed the members of the council in their

seats, right? Is Rutter based in Costa Mesa? I think not. David

Eadie, president of Rutter, is not listed in the phone book as living

in our city. He can go bully his own City Council, right?

So who calls the shots? The answer is -- (Ben Franklin knows!) --

“We, the people” of Costa Mesa. Council members voted according to

their constituents’ interests. Come election time, we, the voters,

will remember.

FLO MARTIN

Costa Mesa

I believe that the decision to reconsider 1901 Newport was correct

(it is almost twice the density allowed in the city’s master plan),

but was the subsequent flawed process a much deeper problem?

I attended the last two City Council meetings and was amazed that

three of the council members voted to continue the issue to some

future council meeting without any public comment allowed. The

residents were denied a right to speak on the issue in “public

comment” since it was on the agenda and then were again denied the

right to speak on the issue once it was removed from the agenda.

One council member said that “people were too emotional” to allow

public comment. I did not realize that one’s emotional status

determined their 1st Amendment rights. Why vote to re-hear an issue

and then refuse to hear it?

JUDITH BERRY

Costa Mesa

The granting of a new hearing on the Plaza Newport project was

appropriate and proper. The Costa Mesa municipal code provides for

rehearings, and the residents proceeded in good faith in accordance

with the code.

One of the major issues for this project is shading the massive

structure will create in the surrounding area. Information presented

verbally by the consultants on this issue was in direct contradiction

with written information provided by the same consultants. Other

verbal statements made by the consultant on the issue were just plain

inaccurate and reflected a poor understanding of the principles

involved in shade/shadow analysis. The result was considerable

confusion at the public hearing.

On this basis alone, a new hearing was warranted. Numerous other

issues also remain outstanding. Another hearing is not only

appropriate, it is essential.

The city of Costa Mesa should not join the project developer in

trying to cheat Costa Mesa residents of the opportunity to

participate fully in shaping their city’s future.

SANDRA GENIS

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Sandra Genis is a former mayor of Costa Mesa.

Yes, the council made the right decision to rehear the 1901

Newport condo project.

DAVID J. STILLER

Costa Mesa

The question was asked regarding whether or not the Costa Mesa

City Council made the right decision to rehear the 1901 Newport Condo

project. On the surface, I would say that they did make the correct

call to rehear the case.

However, one could also ask why they are even in a situation where

this topic has come before the council again, and since it has and

they have granted a new hearing, one could conclude that they may

have acted in haste by granting the project with approval on June 2

in the first place. This process of decision-making has become

somewhat of a painful process for the Costa Mesa city councils in

recent years.

Two examples come to mind, the first being the much discussed

skateboard park. For several years, where to put the park has created

such a stir that to my knowledge we still do not have a skateboard

park.

The second example would be the historical Huscroft House and the

city’s desire to take possession of it at a considerable cost to move

only to have it sit and decay due to the council’s inability to

decide what to do with it after all.

Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel for these two

examples. I hope so.

As for 1901 Newport, well, hold on for a long, drawn-out process

of decision-making as timely decisions have come painfully hard for

this council. I know all these council members have their heart in

the right place for our city, but pulling the trigger on a decision

and moving forward to the next issue takes way to much time.

My bottom-line fear regarding this trend would be posing the

question of: What kind decision will be made when a really important

issue comes before council?

TOM NETH

Costa Mesa

Amazing. Try to add 15% to your house size in the way of a

second-story approved by your neighbors and watch bureaucracy at its

finest.

Extra costs, extortion, unreasonable requirements, unrelated

required details, unheard of delays and departments that do not

communicate with one another. But if money is waived in front of our

City Council, they buckle and change the rules for a building which

is four times the building mass per code, and two times the density

code.

CRAIG BELMONT

Costa Mesa