Referendum? Bring it on

Heather Somers

In response to the letter to the editor “Condominiums could spark

revitalization of the Westside,” I wish to clarify the statements of

misinformation that were given.

Firstly, the citizens do need a referendum, when the governing

body -- the City Council -- refuses to listen to the will and the

desires of the community which it serves.

The project at 1901 Newport Blvd. was surreptitiously approved by

the City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, without a

reasonable public hearing process. Since its inception, the project

developers of 1901 Newport Blvd. have bullied, sued and connived this

City Council into not only giving away the farm but paying the

developers to take it. The $1.5 million that the Redevelopment Agency

offered the developers would certainly build a significant number of

low-to-moderate housing units instead of a parking structure.

Secondly, this “scaled down version” is still more than double the

density allowed by the city’s general plan. The plan allows for 20

units per acre for high density . This project is designed for more

than 45 units per acre. And I take particular exception to being

referred to as “mob rule” by those who support the project, when the

aspects of the project do not support the letter or the spirit of the

general plan, under which all developments must adhere.

Thirdly, shortsightedness is clearly an aspect enjoyed not only by

the developers but also by members of the City Council and a small

smattering of the public who support this atrocity. In an area

already severely impacted by a “mansionized” Triangle Square -- also

known as the Bermuda Triangle due to the deplorable parking plan --

with the near-gridlock conditions at 19th Street and Newport

Boulevard, this plan along with the new Vegas nightclub and existing

facilities, such as the church and Turnip Rose, will be sending

potentially 4,000 additional daily car trips to that intersection.

And with a right turn only lane out of the south driveway, the number

of U-turns at 19th Street will create a deadly mix. As for pedestrian

traffic, touted as a boom to the area, what reasonable person is

going to take a leisurely stroll down any of those six- to

-eight-lane thoroughfares just to get out and smell the traffic

fumes?

Granted, this project would replace a big ugly parking lot with a

big ugly parking structure, two stories higher than the present

buildings and higher than what is allowed. Wont that be a charming

visual addition to that corner to see a big ugly cement box behind

the beautiful Spanish-style office complex?

Fourthly, revitalization that was mentioned as successful in other

cities, was done with quality projects that were visually and

socially attractive and acceptable. Those cities followed their own

general plans for density, redevelopment and considered the

surrounding neighborhoods for social impact, not to mention traffic

impacts, parking, shadow, cohesiveness and overall improvement to the

community.

As for affordability, what upwardly mobile, young couple would

want to spend $425,000 to start a their family in a Los Angeles

“projects-style” high rise that is surrounded on three sides by

freeways and main thoroughfares? And if those couples have that much

so-called “disposable income,” they wont be spending it down 19th

Street, in the deplorable shape it is in.

I believe that one letter author is correct when he states that

the project will bring a critical mass of people to the area.

Unfortunately, critical mess can bring about massive, destructive,

chain reaction, if certain principles of physics are applied. The

argument stated a project of this density will bring improvement.

Really? How much of an improvement are the tenement housing projects

in L.A. or Chicago or New York? Ever heard of the study of putting

too many rats in a cage and watching the denigration of the social

structure, eventually leading to cannibalism? Oh, and dealing with

the traffic? Try convincing Caltrans it should continue the Costa

Mesa Freeway to 15th Street. Have you heard that the state is out of

money and won’t even be able to fix the problems that are on the

books -- which the freeway is not.

To summarize, the proposed project at 1901 Newport Blvd. is too

big, too dense, creates too much traffic, is too high, creates an

ugly parking structure, adversely impacts local neighborhoods -- both

visually and socially -- allows spot zoning and absurd variances,

sets an overall bad precedent and is just plain wrong for that site.

It’s time for the residents of Costa Mesa to stand up for the

community we want to have and not be bullied by over-zealous

developers that will hit Costa Mesa and run with our development

money.

* HEATHER SOMERS is a Costa Mesa resident and former councilwoman.