City Council lowers the roof

Jennifer Kho

COSTA MESA -- A retail building on East 17th Street that would have

soared to 25 feet in spots will be built lower than originally proposed

after council members reversed an earlier approval by the Planning

Commission.

In response to Costa Mesa community members who said they thought the

building on the southwest corner of East 17th Street and Santa Ana Avenue

didn’t fit in with the rest of the street, the City Council on Monday

voted 3-2 to limit the height to 18 feet. The building was designed to be

20 feet tall with a round tower 25 feet high.

“There wasn’t a lot we could do,” said City Councilman Chris Steel.

“We aren’t allowed to spot zone and people want us to spot beautify. We

can’t decide what is beautiful. As far as the design, I don’t like it

personally, but there wasn’t anything we could do legally to do deny

[property owner Scott Burnham] his right to build. We got it down to 18

feet and the height was a major concern.”

Steel, City Councilman Gary Monahan and Mayor Libby Cowan voted for

the 18-foot limit, while Councilwomen Linda Dixon and Karen Robinson

dissented.

Dixon was in favor of denying the project, saying it is incompatible

with the surrounding area.

Monahan said the final decision was a compromise.

“They were allowed to go 30 feet and I’m really disappointed that we

even had a motion to kill the project on the table,” he said. “I’m glad

[Burnham] can go forward with that project. It is very small and I think

it will be good for that corner.”

City code permits a maximum height of 30 feet for the building and the

Planning Commission, on May 29, had voted to allow the 25-foot height.

Dan Perlmutter, who owns the shopping center next to the site,

appealed the decision to the council, saying that the building would

obstruct views of his property.

Perlmutter said if the building had been was approved with the maximum

height of 25 feet, it would have “stuck out like a lighthouse.”

“It would have been the laughingstock of the whole community,” he

said. “I think overall the City Council did the right thing. I wish they

had lowered it a little bit more, ideally to 13 feet, but I appreciate

that they overturned the decision of the Planning Commission, which was

definitely off the wall. If it had been built as 25-feet high, it would

have been a unique white elephant for the community. Protocol is you put

the higher buildings in the back and the lower ones in front.”

Planning Commissioner Bruce Garlich said he thinks the architect will

have to redesign the project to bring the height down to 18 feet.

“When we looked at this project, there was considerable inquiry from

us about the height of the building,” he said. “As I recall the

discussion, we couldn’t lower the height below 20 feet without having to

go back and redo everything so I think, in effect, the architect is going

to have to look at a different design for the building. The building

matched all the code requirements and development standards, so I didn’t

think there was a strong reason from a planning standpoint to [deny] it.

But the City Council has the right to apply different points of view than

we do, and I’m comfortable with [the City Council] decision.”

Burnham was not available for comment by press time.