Trading Salvos Over Bolsa Chica
* Re: Nov. 19 editorial, “Delaying Wetlands Review Is Fairest Move.”
Your position is wrong because it states: “The federal government and the developer should redouble efforts to reach an agreement on price.” There should be no development on the Bolsa Chica so the agreed upon price is not the solution. The price Koll Real Estate Group wants is tied to allowing them to build 3,300 homes on the mesa and do no restoration. If that deal goes through, the communities lose the largest unprotected wetlands south of San Francisco. The project should be denied as the Coastal Commission staff recommended.
EILEEN MURPHY
Huntington Beach
* An important fact was missed in the Nov. 11 article, with regard to the proposed development of homes in the lowlands and wetlands as part of the Bolsa Chica project. Although administrative staff for the Coastal Commission recommended against allowing Koll Real Estate Group to make economic use of its property in the lowland, the staff did recommend that the Fieldstone Co., which also owns property in the lowland, could build homes there.
Of the 900 single-family homes approved by the county for construction in the Bolsa Chica lowland, 200 have been requested to be built on Fieldstone’s land. It is extraordinarily arbitrary and unfair to permit one landowner to develop its property but to deprive another from doing so in the very same area. Koll Real Estate Group remains committed to the plan approved by the County of Orange, which includes the private funding of a public wetlands improvement project. The restoration program will result in public ownership of more than 1,200 acres of wetlands, parks, habitat areas and open space.
Aside from this point, I would like to applaud the Los Angeles Times for its continued thorough coverage of a complex topic.
LUCY DUNN
Senior vice president
Koll Real Estate Group
* I was confused and frustrated by the comments made by Jack Fancher of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in your article about the Bolsa Chica wetlands (Nov. 11). It doesn’t make sense to me when Fancher says that on one hand the Bolsa Chica wetlands are healthy and in good shape, but on the other hand his own government agency is proposing to spend $62 million to restore those wetlands. Is this another typical example of government doublespeak? Confuse the public and give us nothing?
Seeing is believing. I invite anyone who has any doubts about the merits of the Bolsa Chica development and restoration plan to take a drive to the end of Garfield Avenue at Seapoint Street. This intersection overlooks the Bolsa Chica lowland property behind the ecological reserve, and shows the actual characteristics of the property where homes are proposed. Who are the no-growthers kidding when they claim it’s a bad deal to develop 58 acres of private property containing poor quality habitat, in exchange for getting a fully restored, 1,100-acre ecosystem at no taxpayer cost? Let’s get real here.
MIKE GUEST
Huntington Beach
