Neighbors have right to be concerned about Habitat homes

Tamar Goldmann

Regarding the proposed plan to develop eight Habitat for Humanity

homes in a Costa Mesa neighborhood and the Pilot editorial, “Habitat

project right fit for area,” Oct. 3, it is amazing that the Pilot

continues to choose to assign motives to the residents of College

Park and then to criticize them while the statements of the

developers are taken at face value. Although you agree that issues in

most cases are “nuanced,” you seem not to find any standing for our

position. We are simply “wrong.”

Let’s start with a simple misunderstanding and then get on to the

more complicated issues. The Pilot’s editorial starts off with the

statement that “next to the site is an apartment complex that is

certainly large enough that eight homes wouldn’t make a noticeable

difference in traffic or parking.” However, the apartments do not

have access through College Park, and in fact, at the time they were

built, the city decided to protect College Park from through traffic

by allowing access only through Wilson Street. Obviously, if access

to the proposed Habitat project was not through Wake Forest,

currently a dead-end street, our traffic and parking concerns would

be eliminated, and the only concern remaining would be for the

prospective residents.

The neighbors, who have expressed the most concern for the quality

of life of the prospective residents, have homes that back up to the

20-foot or 40-foot protective berm. Despite this protection, they

have been awakened at night and have been subject to frequent daytime

intrusions of noise, including almost daily window-rattling. Without

knowing these kind and compassionate people, how can the Pilot decide

that their motivation is selfish and then criticize them for it?

The Pilot mentions Bruce Garlich’s comment that the eventual

homeowners should make their own decisions about the noise. Yet he,

himself, told the story of homeowners who move next to an airport and

then want the airport to move.

How will the new homeowners be protected? Disclosures. That seems

designed more to protect Home Depot, Habitat and the city from

complaints than to ease the lives of the residents. Oh? Horns,

airbrakes, pallets banging and that window-rattling mystery noise are

disturbing you? Tough luck. We warned you before you moved in.

Why is the College Park request for five or six homes

“befuddling?” Just a little bit of background checking would make our

reasons clear. Our first choice, of course, would be to keep the

protective berm at the end of Wake Forest. That is essentially the

only mitigation that the closest neighbors to the Home Depot loading

activity have for continuing noise intrusion. It is part of the site

plan for Harbor Center, and we have every right and reason to expect

it to remain. While it doesn’t eliminate noise from Home Depot, it

does provide a compensatory reduction in traffic past our houses. We

deserve that reduction.

You can’t hang “not in my back yard,” “NIMBY,” on us, either. We

fought to have the permanent closure of the wall legally guaranteed

in our lawsuit settlement but were outspent and outgunned by a

wealthy, powerful developer. The best we could do was to set down in

writing our opposition to opening the wall under any circumstances.

Why do we say five or six houses? Habitat claims that its projects

are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Eyeballing the site

map, we could see that that was the number of lots corresponding to

our lots that would fit on the property. To us, a reasonable

definition of “compatible” was the same size lots and a public street

with the same parking opportunities our street has. This is not an

unreasonable definition of compatibility; we didn’t ask for hardwood

floors and brick fireplaces.

When Habitat claimed that it wasn’t economically feasible to build

fewer than eight units, we were “befuddled.” The land is free! It

seems that even if they built one home, they would come out ahead.

Economies of scale certainly shouldn’t matter. They frequently build

only one home. Remember that here the land is free, the homes are

basic, volunteer labor is used, and many materials are donated or

sold at reduced prices. If the local Habitat can’t build economically

with all these advantages, the city and neighbors should not be asked

to bail them out.

Scott Bell, president of ICI Development, which owns the

properties, claims to want to be a good citizen and a good neighbor.

If Bell wants to be a good neighbor, why does he refuse to allow the

building to take place through Harbor Center, which he was willing to

do for his own project and which would shield the affected neighbors

from the worst of the worst, the construction noise?

Our position is much more nuanced than any three-minute sound bite

could convey. If the project must go in and our mitigating berm be

opened, it is only fair that compensatory conditions on Harbor Center

be put in place -- first and foremost, construction before opening of

the wall. Also, to make up for increased traffic past our homes,

trash-compacting and lumber-loading operations could be moved and

operating hours could be reduced. Thus, instead of more noise created

by traffic, we would have traffic instead of the current loading dock

noise. In the interests of neighborliness, why couldn’t Habitat

provide one of their “blitz builds” instead of subjecting neighbors

to 18 months, including Saturdays, of course, of intolerable

construction noise?

It’s obvious that this is not a desirable location. City Planning

staff has evaluated the site and recommended denial of the rezone. If

all the good charitable folks who spoke in favor of the project

partnered with Habitat and the $2.4 million they already claim to be

planning to spend, they could do better.

* TAMAR GOLDMANN is a resident of Costa Mesa.