Strictly anti-business

I was disappointed by the Costa Mesa City Council’s decision Monday

night to overturn the Planning Commission’s 4-1 approval of the

Kohl’s project at Mesa Verde Center. Not only was the verdict

disappointing, but so to was the methodology and reasoning used by

our city leaders to reach their decision.

The Mesa Verde Center in recent years has lost the Ice Chalet

skating rink and the movie theater. The resulting empty buildings,

combined with the decaying Kona Lanes, has created an eyesore and

embarrassment for the neighborhood. For six years, the property owner

attempted to attract entertainment uses to the site, but no companies

were willing to make the investment at a site that had only seen

failure. Finally, the nation’s largest department store chain,

Kohl’s, advanced a plan to build a brand new department store on the

site. It is important to note that the project met every city zoning

law in terms of building size, parking and use. It was a retail use

at a retail site, it had adequate parking, the building size was less

than allowed and no traffic studies indicated any sort of traffic

problem with the use. As you will see, the fact that they complied

with city requirements made little difference to our leaders.

Mayor Karen Robinson acted swiftly to appeal the Planning

Commission’s approval of Kohl’s based on the over abundance of

traffic she feared this use would bring. Her actions had a factual

basis. Robinson had been involved in two recent problems involving

overcrowding, one at an apartment complex, the other at a nearby

shopping center. Robinson naturally did not want to see the same

problem here and filed her appeal. In response to the appeal, Kohl’s

revised the plan to provide more parking than required and also paid

for a traffic study to be conducted by the city’s traffic consultant.

The study showed that the use would not unduly burden the

neighborhood’s traffic flow.

At the City Council meeting Monday, Robinson would not be swayed

by Kohl’s arguments. In response to the fact that the project met the

city’s requirement for parking and traffic, she countered that these

requirements did not reflect real life. Without commenting on why the

city’s own requirements were not realistic, she went on to say that

her daily commute down Mesa Verde Drive was evidence enough that

there was already too much traffic. I was surprised, given the

mayor’s occupation as a lawyer, that she could not offer any traffic

studies or impact reports to back her conclusion. As it turned out,

she didn’t need any, as Councilmen Gary Monahan, Chris Steele and

Allan Mansoor fell in line and also voted against the proposal.

Robinson was no doubt concerned about city traffic and what she

felt was a growing imbalance in the types of uses found in Costa

Mesa. She stated that, although Kohl’s by itself was in compliance,

the sum total of recent development had created a problem. She failed

to show by what measure there was now a problem. Traffic studies by

the city’s own consultant could find no adverse affects. Our

neighborhood is in walking distance to a 200-acre park, a 50-acre

model train ride facility and a 200-acre 36 hole public golf course.

How, I wondered, did a 10-acre retail development in an existing

retail center put us out of balance?

I have no doubt that each of our council members is looking out

for the best interests of the city’s residents, and for that we

should be thankful. But business is an important part of this city,

too; not only for the city revenue they provide, but also the

convenience it provides its residents. Is it fair that Kohl’s comes

to town to rehabilitate a decaying center and after they spend

precious time and money to meet every city requirement the council

members simply say it is “too much”?

This in spite of the fact that the planned building was no bigger

than what was to be demolished, and still 50,000 square feet less

than city zoning allows for the entire center. So what is “too much”?

What size building is acceptable? Does the applicant have a right to

know? Down the street, a 35,000-square-foot 99 Cents Only Store is

allowed to open, and Kohl’s is given the run around. The message is

frightening, both for our property values and future of the city.

Only Councilwoman Libby Cowan, a former planning commissioner,

voted for the project. She stated that although she was not excited

about the project, there was nothing in current zoning laws which

would prohibit its use. She also explained that we live in an

urbanized area where traffic is a way of life. This common sense

seemed strangely out of place.

Perhaps the residents who showed up at the meeting to voice their

displeasure with the project swayed our city leaders. Of the 28 who

spoke, 25 spoke against the project. In the end, all that mattered

was that Robinson thought it was “too much,” with nothing to back it

up but her own personal experiences. The other dissenting council

members could offer no concrete reasons or solutions.

I am confused. If we are out of balance, what is the total acreage

devoted to shopping, industrial and residential and what is desired?

If we have too much traffic, what traffic counts are desired and what

are the counts now? Perhaps Robinson is right, and if so, does that

mean no new retail development is allowed? The shabby retail reflects

poorly on nearby residential values. If you don’t believe me, take a

drive through Santa Ana sometime.

The “anti-business” forces are now leading Costa Mesa. Is anyone

out there concerned?

MARK LES

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Les is the owner of Mesa Verde Plaza at 1525 Mesa

Verde Drive East.