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.