Bolsa Chica Restoration Has Critics, Defenders

Re “A Big Step for Bolsa Chica,” Nov. 25:

The editorial accurately reflected the history of and proceedings on the restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and thoughtfully focused on the issues of concern to our community. As you pointed out, the California Coastal Commission imposed strict water quality monitoring and remediation requirements on the project.

Because no urban runoff will flow into the wetlands from Orange County flood-control channels, that usual source of beach contamination will be eliminated. The tidal inlet and habitat areas will also be designed to minimize the risk of ocean and beach contamination.

Contrary to the statements made in Bob Traver’s Nov. 25 letter, “the good people at Signal Landmark, Koll and Hearthside Homes” deserve no praise for their role in creation of a sound restoration plan for Bolsa Chica. Before the sale of the undevelopable 880 acres of wetlands and lowlands to the state for $25 million, Hearthside was committed to restoring much of that land at a cost of about $50 million. This was a hard-fought compromise that was agreed to reluctantly by the landowners in exchange for the right to build on some of the lowland property. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled such development to be contrary to the California Coastal Act.

With federal permits also in doubt, Signal/Koll/Hearthside found itself in the fortunate position of having a willing buyer at a more than fair price for their undevelopable property. The Bolsa Chica Restoration Plan approved by the Coastal Commission, created by a team of federal and state agencies, bears little resemblance to the preliminary restoration plans drafted by Signal, which called for a channel through a wider and far more popular area of beach near Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue.

Over the last 28 years, Signal Landmark, Koll and Hearthside Homes have fought every effort by the public to preserve, restore and acquire Bolsa Chica, one of the last remaining significant wetland habitat areas in Southern California. Their concessions to what is good for the environment have come reluctantly, slowly and with the weight of law hanging over them. To paint them as environmental saviors is the height of absurdity.

Linda Sapiro Moon

President

Amigos de Bolsa Chica

*

Re “Panel OKs Bolsa Chica Restoration,” Nov. 14:

The decision by the Coastal Commission is not entirely welcomed by all environmentalists. Although most will agree that restoration of the wetlands is a desirable goal, creating an ocean inlet at Bolsa Chica may have dire consequences to Bolsa Chica State Beach. Among the concerns are the loss of beneficial use of part of the beach to the inlet, and the loss of state park income if the beach is closed because of contamination from the wetlands.

Also of concern is the potential health risk to surfers and swimmers from polluted runoff at ebb tide from the 1,200-acre coastal expanse of polluted salt marshes, mudflats, pools and depleted oil rigs. Although we have been assured by the plan’s proponents that the wetlands would be adequately cleaned up as part of the restoration, there have been no independent assessments of the environmental risk and the cost of this cleanup, and no cost-benefit analysis of the value of each of the other options included in the draft environmental report. The options that include an ocean inlet are by far the most expensive, at an estimated $100 million or more. That is a high price to pay for a marginal increase in fish habitat (about $1.67 million per species).

The real beneficiaries of this most costly option are the plan’s proponents themselves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gains an expensive fish incubator for its constituents, (sport and commercial fishermen), the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach gain millions of dollars in mitigation credit for the environmental damage caused by their expansions, and the Army Corps of Engineers gains millions of dollars in restoration projects. The losers in this deal are the citizens and taxpayers of California (owners of the state park system), and state park visitors.

It appears that the Coastal Commission has more concern for the health and well-being of fish and birds than it does for people.

Don Schulz

Member, Executive Committee

Surfrider Foundation

Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter

*

The juxtaposition of the two editorials in last Sunday’s Times is remarkable. Once again, as so often before, The Times ignores the economics of the real estate market as if that would make it go away. “A Big Step for Bolsa Chica” and “Good News on Home Front” are applauding two developments that contradict each other. To put it in terms as simple as possible: You cannot have more swamps and cheaper housing at the same time, yet such is considered progress there.

The “big step” for Bolsa Chica means higher housing prices in Orange County, and so does the “good news” that Mission Viejo’s Ladera Ranch developer will build more low-income apartments in order to get approval for the project. How could that latter be the case, one might ask? Well, to pay for the cheaper apartments the developer will have to charge more for the rest of the houses, unless he gets deprived of the full use of his private property, which is supposed to be protected by our Constitution. Government meddling in the free market is nothing to applaud, and that applies to private land-use coercion.

The only honest way to achieve cheaper housing is to encourage more development, to increase the total supply by getting government out of the way. The one thing it should do is reform our absurd tort system, unique in the world, which is also a big contributor to higher real estate prices.

H. R. Richner

Costa Mesa

*

Let’s see, we have a war going on, a teetering economy, people who are cold, homeless, hungry and alone as the winter approaches, and the good people of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust want us to spend more tax money on buying land that’s not for sale and pouring millions into restoration. All this so we can create a Disneyland for the birds, as one passerby put it. I guess the rich and elite do have very different priorities.

Julie Shatney

Garden Grove