Butow: Laguna Beach Open Space Initiative Questions Remain

(Part 1 In A Series)

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Some say that the Devil is in the details, then again some allege God. This issue might have both. After hours of research and interviews, I still have some nagging doubts and unanswered questions about the fine print. As an avowed enviro-protectionist myself, color me conflicted.

Is the Laguna Beach Open Space Initiative (LBOSI) Ecological Heaven, or is it Fiscal Hell? Turns out, at least to me as a professional in the closely-related environmental consultant field, that it could be both: A dual personality self-taxing measure. It’s like one of those “I have some good news and some bad news” jokes.

Winston Churchill said: “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” I keep peeling back the layers of this onion and I find more unresolved questions inherent in not only the legal and logistical dynamics but in the initiative wording itself.

The measure’s verbiage has a lot of informational holes in it which analysts like myself need filled in order to progress definitive conclusions. Color me under-whelmed.

It also has a lot of what I’ll call unfinished business, nebulous dangling thoughts, a lot of “To Be Determined” or “To Be Announced” elements that make me scratch my head and nether regions thinking “Hey, wassupwiththat?”

Yes, intrinsically, purchasing large, uninterrupted swaths of the remaining open space around us, to insure that we remain as much a people as flora/fauna sanctuary is a no-brainer, seems like a groovy idea.

Extrinsically, for $20 million in a major land acquisition investment, on the surface it appears to be a pretty good strategy. Seeking about 400+ acres, the sticker price of about $50,000 average per acre, like much of the unbuildable terrain, does seem a little steep.

As a 40-year builder in South OC, I find the proponent Political Action Committee (PAC) warnings regarding subsequent building codes and technologies making unbuildable lots attractive for development in the future specious if not outright false alarms. Much of what makes these parcels valuable precludes any alterations.

Unless someone invents an anti-gravity device, the steeper topography never has and never will readily avail itself to anything other than repelling by rope. Then too, state building codes, like CALGreen that came into law as of Jan. 1, 2011, combined with our updated 2009 stormwater permit (NPDES) are tremendous development challenges and disincentives.

One must add the expenses and hurdles of the environmental impact analyses also required, and if threatened and/or endangered species are present, those hindrances can become insurmountable. Now ladle in a dollop of Cal Coastal Commission staff input, maybe stir in some Cal Fish & Game comments and mitigations. Mix well for a long, long while.

Personally, I don’t think one square foot of what’s to be acquired should have trails, scenic view benches, or allow human incursion and meddling. Other than the interference required by a field biologist for observational surveillance or perimeter fuel modification for fire prevention, I’d prefer that we just let Mother Nature have her way.

One must balance objections with the fact that one of the goals stated is to buy swaths, perhaps 20 acre parcels which DO have more ecological value ... more about that later.

The property management aspect of the equation does have me wondering. Since when are cities doing well in that business?  We’re going to become property owners AND managers. One of my few conclusions is that with only 5% total each year set aside in the initiative budget for administration, operations and maintenance, this thing is WAY under-funded.

We’ve become a nation of true believers and worshipers when it comes to management, haven’t we? Earmarking more initially then backing down percent-wise would have been smarter in regards to adaptive management. It would have allowed some flexibility during formative years, especially if fiscal shortcomings and financially jeopardizing conflicts arise.

Much of the organizational evolution will take place in the first few years during the front-loading phase, and that will be time (read: $$$) consuming. It should have proactively anticipated concessions that could resolve such potential conflicts without having to re-submit the measure or go to city emergency fund coffers. This is why insurance companies sell you Errors & Omission policies, but this investment has none.

We’re going to buy Rolls-Royce open space, but possibly have insufficient dollars at launch or for upkeep without "in flight" correction mechanisms? Each year the inventory will get appreciably larger, yet the 5% is mandated to be the maximum funds available in any given year. Talk about the law of diminished returns—or a deferred, potentially harmful lack of proper health care.

Brush clearing, drainage protection, in perpetuity ecological inventories/assessments performed by a trained professional field biologist, administrative, etc. For primo habitat, 5% is myopic, and there isn’t a specific mechanism or a mid-course correction element if more money is required. The amount allocated is locked in from the start.

Let’s look at the endeavor in algorithmic, formulaic terms that integrate the extrinsic and intrinsic. And let’s watch the collision, the grinding and crunching together of disparate principles.

First, readers must understand that unlike the guiding principles of our Founding Fathers, all open space is NOT equal. Some environs are more valuable than others—even if superficially similar, we even use phrases and rate environs as High, Medium or Low value habitat.

This has variables within it. It might include whether there’s a listed threatened or endangered species of flora and/or fauna. Or whether, even though not observed by field personnel, does it have enviro-restoration potential, will those native species return if left undisturbed and untouched by humans?

Then there’s physical proximity, that is connective contiguous linkage, sometimes referred to as migratory corridors. Some animal communities need substantially sized parcels for breeding, nesting, and foraging. Some plants can only thrive if present in large population numbers. These are important parts of the sundry measuring devices or matrices that determine biological worth and future potential.

Let’s fantasize a 20-acre parcel with both threatened and endangered species on it. Say it has a pair of breeding, endangered gnatcatchers surrounded by their critical plant (High Value) habitat, a vernal pool or two, maybe an ephemeral blue line watercourse. An initial inventory or assessment is performed to confirm conditions and populations, and that costs bucks. But it doesn’t stop there. They’ll need earmarked, long-term funding, for the life of ongoing ownership, protection and monitoring schedule.

Keep in mind that we might not be able to purchase adjacent or contiguous parcels, so we could wind up with a disjointed, disconnected checkerboard—that doesn’t have as much value or is as easy to manage.

Buying the open space is one thing, taking care of it within mandated regulatory and jurisdictional prescriptions is another, so that’s a legitimate unresolved fiscal issue—the LBOSI is vague about just who’ll pick up that tab. Upfront expenditures partially explained, but back-end details remain obscure.

So 5% at the opening bell isn’t going to be enough in my mind. In this day of shrinking non-profit donations, that’s a slippery slope.  Basically praying and crossing our fingers, we’re hoping some local green NGO will automatically stand and deliver, and take this property off of our hands? As most don’t have in-house uncompensated biologists, they’ll find the money to hire/pay professional personnel? Didn’t happen down at Hobo Canyon, did it?  That 220-odd acres the Montage/Athens Group LLC offered for free is still an orphan, without parents.

As for the negotiations for the purchase of said hypothetical 20-acre parcel, once the prospective seller finds out about those birdies, THEIR asking price goes up—as it should, it’s more extrinsic and intrinsically valuable. Should we then pay more to get more?

Who decides which parcels get purchased when, who performs the initial assessments, or who/what maintains them afterwards in perpetuity is also very nebulous. And that five-member citizen’s oversight committee in the thick of it, appointed by our own Council? THAT I’ve definitely got doubts about, which I’ll deal with next time.