Suit claims coastal plan is ‘infeasible’

Tariq Malik

HUNTINGTON BEACH -- In the latest dispute over the future of Bolsa

Chica, landowners Signal Landmark and developer Hearthside Homes Inc.

have targeted the California Coastal Commission in a lawsuit claiming the

agency illegally “took” property on the mesa, making development

infeasible.

Hearthside and Signal filed the suit Friday in an Orange County

Superior Court, seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as an

abandonment of the commission’s decision to cut back the amount of

available land on the 230-acre mesa and the return to a previous

development proposal.

In a Nov. 16 hearing, the 12-member commission voted unanimously to

limit development to 65 of the 183 acres planned for Hearthside’s

1,235-unit tract.

Hearthside and Signal officials declined comment on the issue because

of the pending litigation.

But coastal commissioners said this week that the Hearthside and

Signal complaint is far from airtight.

“I think they have a pretty hard rope to tow,” said Sara Wan,

chairwoman of the coastal commission. “When you allow them to build 1,235

homes, it’s pretty hard to claim it’s a taking.”

Attorneys for the commission looked long and hard at whether the

agency’s action could constitute a taking of land, she added.

Huntington Beach Councilwoman Shirley Dettloff, also a commission

member, said the group had a firm basis, both legally and scientifically,

for its decision.

But the language in Hearthside’s lawsuit takes issue with that.

“It is physically infeasible for Signal to build anything approaching

1,235 homes on the upper bench [mesa] . . . ,” Hearthside’s complaint

states, adding that even if it were possible to build the project

approved by the commission, it would be wholly out of character for the

surrounding neighborhood.

The claim maintains the commission’s action violated state and federal

law, and went against previous approvals of the project.

“The commission’s decision to adopt a new approach violated the

Coastal Act and directly conflicted with the commission’s own prior

findings approving home construction on the entire Bolsa Chica mesa,”

according to the suit.

Plans to build on the Bolsa Chica date back 30 years, when Signal’s

predecessor first purchased the 1,200 acres comprising the area.

Environmental groups such as the 25-year-old Amigos de Bolsa Chica and

the Bolsa Chica Land Trust have actively been seeking to protect the

wetlands and mesa areas from development.

Original plans included a marina, motel, 5,700 homes, a navigable

ocean inlet, a roadway through the wetlands and 915 acres of wetlands

restoration, all of which has been vastly scaled down.

In additions to scaling development down once again in November,

commissioners also limited housing to three stories in height, and

required a scenic road through the mesa’s upper area, improvements to the

intersection of the Garden Grove and San Diego freeways, as well as water

runoff conditions.

These impositions, according to the complaint, were geared at stopping

development “any way possible.”

Some environmentalists said that while they weren’t surprised by the

lawsuit, it was unexpected.

“We knew they had a right to file such a lawsuit, but we thought they

would just get on with their development,” said Evan Henry, president of

the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, who polled the members of his organization on

the matter. “The bottom line is that this was a highly speculative real

estate deal involving well-known wetlands and environment issues, and an

investment return was never guaranteed.”