Nothing shadowy about condo plan

Paul Flanagan’s community commentary that appeared in the Daily Pilot

on May 8 (“Condo plan a shadowy one for Costa Mesa”) concerning the

approved condominium project at 1901 Newport Plaza is a classic

example of how factually incorrect information is imparted to sway

public opinion as well as those in the decision-making capacity at

City Hall.

An extensive environmental report was prepared and several

exhaustive public meetings took place before the Planning Commission

and City Council each approved the development proposal. Yet, as

president of Citizens for Responsible Growth, Flanagan subsequently

filed papers seeking to compel a completely new hearing on the

matter, contending that the public hearing process had been flawed.

The facts in this matter do not square with Flanagan’s profoundly

inaccurate views. Contrary to his assertions, there were no master

plan amendments, there was no “in lieu” fee for affordable housing

approved, there was no variance granted so the inhabitants of Barnard

Street could dwell in the shade. The exhibits relied upon were not

the applicant’s; something he calls the developer’s “junk science

does not exist -- it is actually true science found in the

independently conducted environmental report (the developer had

nothing to do with its composition) that was produced for and

certified by the city of Costa Mesa.

Further, and quite the contrary to Flanagan’s assertions, there

was a clear legal basis for the project’s approval.

And, finally, the variance that was approved after much thought by

the city was to allow for the placement of garage doors and had

nothing remotely to do with added building height as asserted.

Flanagan never gave testimony or produced written communications

to either the Planning Commission or the City Council during the

noticed public hearings that took place before approval of the

project. Importantly, Flanagan did not comment on the environmental

report. If he had, those comments would have been answered factually,

and Flanagan’s misinformed views might have been averted.

The city planning staff, with many decades of collective

experience, emphatically stated to the City Council that there was no

new relevant evidence to justify a rehearing of the matter. Yet, two

members of the City Council voted to have a rehearing.

One can only speculate about the effects confusing information had

in the outcome of this process as the City Council deliberated. The

knowledge of the city’s very competent team of professionals should

be relied upon in technical matters pertaining to project designs and

effects. Meanwhile, an innovative plan of development that furthers

the goals of the city and will bring much-needed ownership housing to

the downtown area remains in limbo even after having received all

legal and appropriate approvals.

DAVE EADIE

Chief Executive Officer

Rutter Development Corp.