Wetlands not what is holding up senior housing
Stephanie Barger
In response to your Friday, May 30 story, “Wetlands verdict holding
up senior homes,” this is an issue that has been worked on very hard
over the last few years by many people, including city staff, park
commissioners and citizens of the community. Some clarification is in
order:
Earth Resource Foundation has been represented and testified at
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission hearings, and subcommittee
meetings, council study sessions and council meetings over the past
two years. The planning for the development of the park on Upper
Bayview Landing was underway well before the senior housing project
was introduced on Lower Bayview Landing. The addition of the
affordable senior housing project to the package seemed like a
possible resolution to many of the issues faced by the park plan such
as the cost of off site dirt disposal and therefore was “wedded” to
the park project.
Through the whole long process, the position of the community
members and the city staff has consistently been to ensure that the
requirements of the California Coastal Act were met and that an
appropriate park be developed on the Upper Bayview property. An
agreement in concept resulted in two groups, the foundation and Stop
Polluting Our Newport, submitting letters of support for this agreed
upon “concept” of a 100% native vegetated park and minimum grading,
along with an ornamental border along Coast Highway and Jamboree.
These letters were provided at the city’s request and are part of
public record. This concept seemed to gain approval by city staff and
the subcommittee meetings, and was part of the Feb. 25 staff
recommendation to the City Council, which specified, “the park will
have a few benches, natural vegetation and minimal ornamental
landscaping”
However, when the plan was presented to the City Council on Feb.
25, parks commissioner Val Skoro requested that upon approval, the
plan be returned to the parks commission for final determination of
the “park landscape design,” including some turf grass and more
irrigation on the site. The “park landscape design” referred to by
Skoro could have involved a complete change of the vegetation,
irrigation, plant types, grading, layout etc., thus changing the
agreed upon “concept” significantly. These comments were echoed by
Debra Allen, chairwoman of the parks commission, who agreed with
Skoro that the irrigation and vegetation of the park not be specified
at this stage in the process.
Councilman Tod Ridgeway then commented that he agreed with the
commissioners and that the final design of the park was not yet
determined. He then made the motion to approve the project and to
direct staff to provide the ability for the parks commission to
conduct an outreach program for the design of the park. This
last-minute turn of events caused a great deal of concern in both the
foundation and Stop Polluting Our Newport and a revisit to the
property by Jan Vandersloot for a closer look.
The implication that somehow the “environmental community” exists
as a separate entity is an attempt by the mayor to isolate community
members who care about what happens to the scant remains of open
space in the city. The “list of conditions” referred to in your story
is an attempt to clarify the natural park concept and attempt to
comply with the California Coastal Act. In order for the foundation
to continue to support and remain consistent with the beliefs of the
organization, it is necessary that the project be consistent with the
act.
The “list of conditions” is actually within a memorandum of
understanding. This memorandum (initiated by city staff and drafted
with many hours of communication between the city and representatives
of Stop Polluting Our Newport and Earth Resource Foundation) was to
clarify and add specificity so that the two organizations could go to
the Coastal Commission and testify in support of the project in good
faith. This was not, as the mayor states, a “quid pro quo.” The City
Council rejected the memorandum outright, even though city staff
conceived it. Since the memorandum focused almost totally on the
park, it appears that the council is willing to let this project die,
including the senior housing, rather than merely meeting the
requirements of the state law in the design of the project.
Vandersloot, the Earth Resource Foundation and Stop Polluting Our
Newport do not have some magic power to “kill” projects, as implied
by the mayor. If the Coastal Commission denies the permit, it will be
because the city refused to present a plan that meets the
requirements of the law, the California Coastal Act.
Had the City Council agreed to support the memorandum initiated by
its own staff, the city and the environmental community could have
gone together as a unified voice to support the project, both the
senior housing and park, thereby increasing the chances of passage of
the project by the Coastal Commission.
* EDITOR’S NOTE: Stephanie Barger is a Corona del Mar resident and
the executive director of the Earth Resource Foundation.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.