Silva says Bolsa decision means more delays

Tariq Malik

HUNTINGTON BEACH - County Supervisor Jim Silva chided California

Coastal Commission members this week, saying their unanimous decision to

cut development on the lower Bolsa Chica mesa will mean the issue will

have to be studied and delayed again for months.

“We had a plan that was compatible with both the environmental and

development aspects of this land, and now we have to go back and

hopefully find that compatibility again,” Silva said, refering to the

county’s 1997 agreement.

Silva added it will take up to four months for county officials to

review the 12-member commission’s vote and bring a land-use plan forward

for supervisor approval.

County officials, developers and environmentalists will now debate how

to interpret the state’s latest ruling over development on the Bolsa

Chica wetlands.

In a Nov. 20 meeting, commissioners agreed to again cut back

development on the mesa about 65 acres in the upper bench, with the rest

reserved for conservation except for 10 acres on Warner Avenue set aside

for a new school.

“It’s a decision that we’re excited about because it essentially

assures the survival of the wetlands,” said Linda Moon, president of the

Amigos de Bolsa Chica, an environmental group that has fought to protect

the wetlands since 1975.

Preserving the lower area of the mesa for conservation saves the land

as a foraging area for raptors, birds of prey that reside in a nearby

grove of eucalyptus trees and play a role in the area’s wetland

ecosystem.

The commission has been reviewing development plans for Bolsa Chica

since 1982, which then included 500 acres with some5,000 homes, a marina

and ocean entrance, as well as roads and wetland preservation.

Officials from Hearthside Homes, which had hoped to construct 1,235

detached houses on the 183 acres of the mesa, said the decision could

mean an inability to build anything at all.

“We cannot physically build this project,” said Lucy Dunn, executive

vice president for Hearthside, of the commission’s plan. “With the same

density and less land, it means building structures four stories high in

a place where we are restricted to three stories.”

Dunn said she and Hearthside officials are reviewing their options and

alternatives for development in the wake of the commission’s decision.

Silva said the problem facing county supervisors is finding a balance

between the commission, the county and the city.

“There’s an incompatibility between what the county wants, what the

city wants and what the commission has said it wants,” he said. “I’m

concerned with the public interest, and the question of whether the

developer will still be able to pay for the benefits involved in their

first plan.”

City Councilman Peter Green, who supported Hearthside’s plan to the

commission, said Monday that the decision has dropped the project value

to $50 million, when the earlier plan was estimated to be worth $140

million.

“I do not agree with the commission on this,” he said. “It seemed to

be a taking of [Hearthside’s] land, and I think they have a good lawsuit

here.”

Reports that Hearthside is considering to fight the decision with a

lawsuit have been exaggerated, and the developer will continue to

research its options, Dunn said.

Environmentalists are waiting on the county’s decision, as well as on

Hearthside’s future plans for the area, hoping that there’s a chance the

developer would choose to sell the land to a state of conservation agency

instead.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen,” Moon said. “But one thing’s

for sure, it’s not over yet.”