Senior housing project is worthy of resident support

Steve Bromberg

In serving as a mediator and arbitrator in more than 3,000 cases, I

have learned quite clearly that when a particular side has an

extremely weak position or no viable position, all it can do is

“dance.” That is throw everything in, including the kitchen sink, and

hope something will stick. Well, Stephanie Barger of Earth Resources

Foundation in her Wednesday community commentary, “Wetlands not what

is holding up senior housing,” is dancing.

This issue involves the senior affordable housing project at Lower

Bayview. A little history is important. Lower Bayview is that area

off of Jamboree and Back Bay Drive as you enter Newport Dunes. Upper

Bayview is right above that on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road

and East Coast Highway. Many of you may remember this area where a

Shell Gas Station existed for many years. The city is required to

supply affordable housing, and we chose to do it in the form of

senior affordable housing (very Newport Beach-style apartments).

Affordable housing is a state requirement. Senior housing works well

for us, as 20% of our population is over the age of 65.

Unfortunately, our city is pretty well built out, and Lower Bayview

is the most feasible site left in the city.

When I was elected to the council in 2000, I was assigned to the

Affordable Housing Task Force Committee, and this committee has

worked diligently toward achieving a senior housing project at Lower

Bayview. All was going extremely well as this was truly a win-win

program for everyone. Separately, we were working on developing a

view park on Upper Bayview. That is, a combination of natural

plantings, limited turf grass and minimal grading. It would be a

“pretty park” as opposed to a vacant lot. This would not include

buildings, gym type equipment, swings or anything like that.

We were then given the option of combining the two projects into

one. That is, to develop the view park and the senior housing as a

project which would compliment the two concepts. By doing this, we

were able to include walking trails, a bike path and, quite frankly,

a very beautiful setting, which would not only be appreciated by

everyone in the city, but most significantly, it was environmentally

sensitive. Textbook “win-win.” So far so good.

Now, enter resident Jan Vandersloot. He was at a City Council

meeting where he heard two people say that they wanted to have more

than just natural sage plantings and limited turf grass. He became

outraged. The City Council never made a decision to change its

original plan; we just said we would look at it. This City Council

goes out of its way to do public outreach. We did not change

anything, as Barger would have you believe. Vandersloot filed a

complaint with the California Coastal Commission (project approval is

required by the Coastal Commission) stating that the city should not

be able to build the senior project on Lower Bayview, because he

found wetlands in that area. What this ultimately led to was a

Coastal Commission staff recommendation that our project be denied.

The “wetlands” are a man-made depression, which is rather small,

behind the strawberry stand, a tire rut made by a truck, and a

natural depression, which is also quite small.

Stop Polluting Our Newport, which was being represented by

Vandersloot, with the support of Earth Resources Foundation,

approached our city attorney and gave him a list of “conditions” that

they wanted to see accomplished in the form of further environmental

mitigation on Upper Bayview (the area for the view park). They stated

that if 12 specific items were agreed to by the city for the park on

Upper Bayview, they would, among other things, appear before the

Coastal Commission during the hearing on the park project (Upper

Bayview) and the senior project (Lower Bayview) and testify in

support of those projects. For that matter, their “conditions” did

not indicate any mitigation of these so called “wetlands” on Lower

Bayview, but merely asked for a bridge over our retention basin and a

suggestion that we expand the retention basin, which we were very

agreeable to doing.

So much for Barger’s comment that there was no quid pro quo. In

Barger’s article, not once does she reference any mitigation of

issues at Lower Bayview. So, ask yourself, why is there a demand for

further “mitigation” of Upper Bayview if the concern was to protect

these “wetlands” on Lower Bayview.

Barger embellishes further in her comment that this “ ... 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.” Why would I

do that? My record, as well as that of this council, on

environmentalism in this city is pro active and is public. It speaks

for itself, and I challenge Barger or anyone else to prove otherwise.

My first major battle, so to speak, when I was elected to City

Council, was to secure the Newport Village site as a park as opposed

to a park and an arts center. It was an uphill battle, and with the

assistance of a lot of people in this city, we were successful. At

that time, I worked with a number of environmental and homeowner

groups in a unified team effort. Not once did I ever see Barger or

Earth Resources Foundation become involved in that project which was

approved by a 6-1 council vote.

Barger would have you believe that city staff “conceived” these

conditions. Not so. These were presented to our city attorney and he

was told, “not asked,” that if we agreed to these 12 items for the park, on Upper Bayview, Stop Polluting Our Newport, Vandersloot and

Earth Resources Foundation would appear at the Coastal Commission

hearing in support of the Senior Housing Project on Lower Bayview.

You decide what you want to call this type of conduct. Vandersloot

dictated the “conditions” to city staff and our city attorney

suggested the memorandum of understanding document so that there

would be a mechanism to present the “conditions” to the City Council.

We did not conceive even one of these “conditions” because there was

no need to. We had not changed the original plan.

If these “wetlands” were truly the issue, why were these

“conditions” applicable to Upper Bayview and not Lower Bayview, where

the problem supposedly existed?

It is the intent of the city of Newport Beach to continue working

directly with the Coastal Commission and the community in an effort

to seek approval of this very worthy project. It is important for all

concerned to put their personal feelings and egos aside and move

forward productively for the betterment of the entire city.

* STEVE BROMBERG is the mayor of Newport Beach.