ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE : A Deal’s a Deal in Bolsa Chica

Koll Co.’s plan to build 4,884 homes on the perimeter of Orange County’s Bolsa Chica wetlands appears to be consistent with a hard-fought agreement forged two years ago. That agreement came after nearly two decades of litigation and quarrelsome public meetings. CoOp, a homeowners group that organized only recently, is being unfair in demanding that housing now be slashed by more than 75%.

The 1989 agreement came about as a result of negotiations between the major landowner at the time, Signal Landmark, and the wetlands’ fiercest protector, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, an environmental group. Numerous governmental entities also were on board, including Huntington Beach, which plans to annex Bolsa Chica. Amigos and the governmental agencies will continue to watch carefully as details of Koll’s proposal move forward in the planning process.

But this is not the time to go back to Square One, as CoOp appears to want to do. A workable agreement already is in place that allows for up to 5,700 homes to be built.

To gain approval for development on that scale, Signal agreed to turn over about 800 acres of degraded wetlands for restoration. The state currently owns 300 acres of the wetlands, so the agreement means that eventually 1,100 or more acres of wetlands could be restored in Bolsa Chica, Southern California’s largest coastal marsh. The wetlands are host to many species of wildlife and fauna, including several endangered species.

Signal eventually sold its land to Henley Corp., which asked Koll Co., based in Newport Beach, to design a plan. Last week, Koll proposed building about 900 fewer homes than the maximum allowed under the 1989 agreement. The company also proposed cutting a channel to flush the wetlands with fresh seawater.

The landowners and the developer have been put through numerous hoops to get to this point, which shows the care in planning that’s gone on. At a time when it really counted, Amigos and the governmental agencies did a fine job of holding up development to make sure the public’s interests were defended. Their actions are what brought Signal Landmark to the negotiating table.

But the agreement also made way for the land to be used for a major housing development. As long as Koll adheres to the agreement as forged, and obtains appropriate governmental approval of its specific plans, it should be allowed to move forward.