City has 3 choices for 1901 Newport
- Share via
Deirdre Newman
Negotiations to resolve the 1901 Newport Blvd. lawsuit have inspired
three alternatives to the high-density condominium project, which
city leaders will consider Tuesday.
But the opposing parties have not agreed on one of those
alternatives.
The project, which calls for four four-story buildings in the
parking lot of the Spanish mission-style property, has been in limbo
since August. Rutter Development sued the City Council and Costa Mesa
Citizens for Responsible Growth last summer, claiming that a
rehearing on the downtown condominium project was granted illegally,
without the required presentation of new evidence.
Rutter Development favors an alternative that drops the number of
units from 161 to 145, and drops the number of parking spaces from
415 to 375. If the council approves this alternative, a condition
would require Rutter to drop its lawsuit.
But the citizens’ group does not support this alternative,
spokeswoman Robin Leffler said. It doesn’t support any of the three
alternatives the way they are written, she added. So the group will
present its own alternative that better reflects its position.
Leffler would not provide specifics on that alternative.
“We would like to see a lower density than either of these
alternatives. ... At this point, it appears that [Rutter] and Costa
Mesa Citizens for Responsible Growth are still not at a place where
we can agree,” Leffler said.
Mayor Gary Monahan was frustrated that after five months of
negotiation, an agreement had not been reached.
“The city and the developer laid all their cards on the table, and
[the citizens’ group] is still not satisfied,” Monahan said. “I don’t
know who they’re representing.”
The original project calls for 161 units and 415 parking spaces.
The three alternatives call for less density in the number of
condominiums, in the number of parking spaces or in both. They also
differ in the amount of financial assistance offered by the
Redevelopment Agency to Rutter in exchange for lowering the project’s
density. That assistance could only be used for the construction of
affordable units that are required since the project is in a
redevelopment zone, City Manager Allan Roeder said.
The first alternative calls for 145 units and 415 parking spaces,
with a subsidy of $4.31 million. The Costa Mesa Citizens for
Responsible Growth support the concept of this plan, but not the
subsidy, Leffler said.
The second alternative calls for 150 units, 388 parking spaces and
a $964,000 subsidy. the third option calls for 145 units, 375 parking
spaces and a $1.36-million subsidy.
The citizens’ group opposes the second and third alternatives
because it feels they don’t have the requisite amount of parking
needed for such a large project, Leffler said.
Development Services Department staff members recommend that the
council -- acting as the Redevelopment Agency -- approve either the
original project or the third alternative. These are financially
feasible to both the city and the developer, staff members say. The
alternative with the $4.31-million subsidy is not practical because
the large subsidy amount would trigger a condition that Rutter adhere
to the prevailing wage for the rest of the project, which would
increase the cost significantly, Roeder said.
“It makes the financial deal unfeasible for the developer to build
the project, because in our estimates, the minimum that would trigger
is an increase of 10% in his overall cost,” Roeder said.
David Eadie, chief executive of Rutter Development, was not
available for comment.
Monahan said the citizens’ group has not budged since the
negotiations started and has threatened to sue the city. Leffler
denied those accusations.
“We have moved very far from where we started,” Leffler said.
“That is not accurate at all. Costa Mesa Citizens for Responsible
Growth has been more than willing to compromise and has worked in
very good faith to resolve this and find something that all parties
could agree to.”
* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa. She may be reached at (949)
574-4221 or by e-mail at [email protected].
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.