1901 density debate lingers

Deirdre Newman

The torrent of discontent stirred up by the 1901 Newport Blvd.

project has led some residents to call for an update of city

planning.

The city’s general plan document is a framework of the city’s

long-term goals for the next 20 years. The last update of the plan

was adopted in 2002, said Development Services Director Don Lamm.

The 1901 Newport Blvd. project had a contentious run through City

Hall. After initial approval, resident opposition to its high density

led the council to reconsider its decision. The developer, Rutter

Development, responded by suing the city for what it saw as an unfair

rehearing -- a complaint still pending.

In the end, the council finally approved a slightly less dense

project that calls for 145 units, 415 parking spaces and a subsidy of

about $1.5 million because Rutter lowered the proposed density.

Robin Leffler, who led the charge against the high density of the

project, said Rutter’s proposal is a stark contrast to what the

community decided on in the general plan.

“I think there needs to be not just City Council public hearings,

but a huge community outreach to see if the people of Costa Mesa have

changed their minds,” Leffler said. “Every time that there’s one of

these substantial general plan amendments, people get very upset.”

But other 1901 Newport opponents, like resident Mike Berry, said

he believes the project’s approval does not require reexamining the

general plan.

“As far as 1901, that wouldn’t work anywhere in the city,” said

Berry, who is planning to run for City Council in the fall. “That’s

too big. There’s no reason to think that anyone anywhere would draft

a general plan that would allow for something like that. It’s just

not in the cards.”

The general plan contains goals for the city in areas such as

development, housing, open space and transportation. It also contains

several hundred policies that deal with issues including growth,

traffic and density. One of those policies is that developments, like

1901 Newport, should not be more than 20 units an acre. The

condominium project is 40 units per acre, which required an amendment

to the general plan.

Former Mayor Sandra Genis, who worked with Leffler to reduce the

density of the condominium project, agreed that the general plan is

sufficient. But it could use a little tweaking in terms of density,

she added.

“I really do think we have a pretty good general plan, but maybe

we need to refine it in a few areas if only to reaffirm our

commitment to being moderate density as opposed to gradually sliding

into what I see as the abyss,” Genis said.

If the community prefers a higher density, then residents at least

will know where things stand instead of having it forced on them one

project at a time, Genis said.

“If people really want a high-density place with bars and

nightclubs, then adopt it right now and I’ll go move someplace else

and all the other people that want to live in a quiet community with

open spaces and parks and basically a good family community could

stop kidding ourselves,” Genis said.

The general plan can only be amended four times a year, Lamm said.

While it is designed to be a flexible document that can withstand

minor revisions every so often, it shouldn’t be subject to frequent,

significant changes, Lamm said. Even though the density issue is just

one policy out of several hundred, changing it would have a major

effect on the city, he added.

“The general plan is to keep the city on the straight path to the

future,” Lamm said. “If you keep amending it every year, you’re going

to be on a curvy road where you don’t see what’s coming around the

next curve.”

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

574-4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.