READERS RESPOND -- Most are wary of Crystal Cove project

I am commenting on the Crystal Cove plans. And what I would like to ask

the director is how come their plans are kept secret if it is so great?

And I would like to see the plans published in the paper so that people

can see how devastating it would be to the area to have those plans go

through.

Crystal Cove is a sensitive ecological area and I don’t understand how

building a hotel there will help that area. And it is my understanding

that the rooms will be $400 to $500. How does that help the public have

more access to the beach? Already we have access to the beach. He says we

already have a magnificent treasure in our urban sprawl and he says he

wants to keep it. But we already have something that awesome. And one way

we could keep it is if the owners were keeping their places and making

them available for rent, maybe just part of the year. And maybe we could

save the places and not have a terrible hotel and complex for the rich

again. I hope to see those plans in the paper because I don’t think a lot

of people know how they are going rip apart a piece of history.

JOAN MEISSENBURG

Costa Mesa

The Newport Beach chapter of Surfrider has participated in a series of

meetings with the developer and state park representatives, and they have

been responsive to many of our concerns. However, the chapter’s position

on the proposed Crystal Cove development is to remove any historical

designation of the cottages and raze them, leaving a natural area to be

enjoyed by all. We realize the delisting is a longshot, but we feel this

is the best solution for the area.

NANCY GARDNER

Secretary, Newport Beach Surfrider chapter

This is in response to Rusty Areias’ column about the Crystal Cove

development. I don’t buy it, Rusty. He is a member of the park department

and they are not seeing it the way we see it here. Let’s keep our rustic

areas as they are and not with a lot of hotels on the beachfront like

Miami.

BETTS HARLEY

Costa Mesa

In response to California State Parks Director Rusty Areias, I don’t see

how building a luxury resort that only a few will be able to use

translates into protecting the environment and allows more public access.

The public already has access. Let’s create a high-quality outdoor

experience by restoring the historic houses and provide tent camping that

all can afford in this, the last, pristine, undeveloped location along

our coast. The area already has enough luxury resort hotels. As for

saving the taxpayers $20 million, I think the people want and can afford

to save our awesome Crystal Cove for all to enjoy.

RITA MADIGAN

Costa Mesa

I am calling in regard to the issue of the week. I am so sorry, but the

first paragraph sounded as though he actually believed in the integrity

of Crystal Cove. Then, as you read on, it looks as though he pretty much

bought into the development that looks like is going to occur. It would

be wonderful in this state if we could leave something to remind us of

what the 1930s actually were like. I think this is a real national

treasure. Not just a state treasure. And I would think it would be

remarkable and wonderful if Rusty Areias’ kids could see that.

POLLY STANDBRIDGE

Newport Beach

I’ll cut right to the chase: Rusty Areias is selling snake oil.

High-flown rhetoric aside, the fact is the California State Parks

Department is in cahoots with a developer, and “development” kind of

blows the whole idea of a state park. You don’t “save a magnificent

treasure in the midst of urban sprawl” by turning it into more urban

sprawl. Rusty, read my lips: more parking lots, dive shops, “interpretive

centers” and seashell boutiques is urban sprawl.

Those of us left who love this land -- or what remains of it -- don’t

want Crystal Cove turned into “Disneyland by the Sea.”

The original 1982 plan is just fine, thanks. And as for Rusty’s

attention-grabbing claim that the new plan will save us $20 million, I

can only say that if you don’t try to turn Crystal Cove into a theme

park, it won’t cost $20 million.

Besides, didn’t California have a budget surplus a few years ago? Too bad

they couldn’t have thrown a few of those shekels over to state parks. As

it is, we can support a few park rangers, lifeguards and jeeps, and

that’s all you really need.

Rusty, leave Crystal Cove alone. This obsession to destroy, gentrify or

otherwise tamper with every square inch of natural land is serious and

needs to be looked into.

NORM FRAHM

Newport Beach

In the late 1970s, the citizens of California approved a major bond issue

which included funds for the acquisition of Crystal Cove State Park. The

citizens had every reason to believe that the entire park would be

utilized by the public rather than the less than 1% of the population who

could afford to pay between $300 and $500 per night for cottage rentals.

The current plan proposed by the state Department of Parks and Recreation

and their selected developer, if approved, would result in the rental

rates indicated above.

In 1982, there was an appropriate General Plan Amendment which provided

for the rehabilitation of the existing 45 cottages. The cottages

represent beach life in California during the 1930s and ‘40s and are

registered as a historic district at the state and federal levels. Any

plan which provides for swimming pools, restaurants and other

contemporary developments will destroy the fabric of the historic site

forever.

The 1982 General Plan should be re-implemented. Funding for the

rehabilitation costs, including infrastructure improvements, has been

previously generated through income to the state from cottage rentals

during the past 20 years,, approximately. Under the 1982 plan, cottages

could be made available to the public for $25 to $30 per night in lieu of

the $300 to $500 rental rate projected by the current developer.

Another situation that deserves a detailed explanation is why were there

secret negotiations between the state and the proposed developer to

change the terms of the proposed lease from 25 to 60 years? All bidders

should have been on a level playing field when initial bids were received

by the state. In this case, there was a major tilt to the playing field.

Let’s not privatize our public treasures. The public should have access

to its major financial investments and the proposed plan should be

blocked at the hearings scheduled to be held by the Coastal Commission

and the state Department of Parks and Recreation Commission.

JUDI ZIEG

Newport Beach