Fight over Bolsa Chica not over

Dave Brooks

California Coastal Commission staff members are recommending that the

coastal regulatory panel reject plans for the Brightwater development

on the upper portion of the Bolsa Chica mesa, setting the stage for a

showdown over the property.

A rejection at the Aug. 12 meeting could kill a recent offer by

landowner Signal Landmark to sell a portion of the property to the

state, unraveling years of bitter negotiations between developers and

environmentalists over the fate of the Bolsa Chica.

Ray Pacini, chief executive of Hearthside Home, which owns most of

remaining contested wetlands, said Tuesday that he’s more determined

than ever to pull out of a deal to sell a 103-acre lower portion of

the Bolsa Chica mesa to the state Wildlife Conservation Board if his

proposal to build a gated 379-home community on the upper portion

isn’t approved.

If Hearthside Homes does pull out, Huntington Beach may lose its

only chance to get funding from Proposition 50, the Clean Water and

Coastal Protection Bond of 2002, to buy the land, said Bolsa Chica

Land Trust member Connie Boardman.

“If they pass on this state money, I don’t know any other

organization that will come up with $65 million,” she said. “I don’t

see other state agencies scrambling to purchase the lower bench.”

In that same November 2000 decision, the commission unanimously

ruled that development of the 183-acre mesa be limited to 1,235 homes

on the 65-acre upper portion, leaving the lower mesa as a foraging

area for raptors.

So either way, the lower end of the mesa is no longer an option

for development, if the commission’s decision holds.

That doesn’t seem to deter Pacini, who said shareholders are

already angry about selling the lower portion for less than they

think it’s worth.

“The only way we can accept that kind of discount is if we can get

the Brightwater plan approved,” he said.

Pacini’s posturing has created a strange paradigm for the Bolsa

Chica Land Trust -- the group has lobbied for conservation of the

entire Bolsa Chica, but ever since the lower portion deal was

proposed, has avoided overtly criticizing development plans.

Instead Land Trust members such as Boardman and Gerald Chapman

have made cautious comments about the development. Recently, Chapman

said he supported the staff member’s recommendation to reject the

project.

“I think what they’re doing is appropriate,” he said.

Citing displacement of endangered tarplant and burrowing owl

habitats, encroachment on a Eucalyptus grove buffer, degradation to a

nearby cliff-side and refusal to include the development plans of a

nearby buffer, staff members ruled that development was not in

accordance with the California Coastal Act and well beyond reasonable

mitigation.

Coastal Commission District Manager Teresa Henry said one of the

major problems with the development was that it did not provide

public access to the wetlands, which because they share water with

the ocean, are considered coastal areas.

But Pacini refuses to budge on a plan to make the development a

gated community, Henry said.

“[Public access] will devalue the property,” Pacini argued, adding

that it would not allow the community to be gated.

Hearthside Homes has 180 days to make changes to bring the project

in line with the Coastal Act, and resubmit plans.

“We think it could be approvable, but it has to be redesigned to

avoid impact on environmentally sensitive habitats,” Henry said.

That includes scaling down the spacious single-family homes, which

average 4,000 to 6,000 square feet.

Pacini said the large homes are necessary to help recoup potential

revenue that could have been earned if Hearthside was allowed to

develop the lower portion. He also said he believed the development

was in accordance the Coastal Commission 2000, and would be built at

a much lower density than what is allowed. He remains determined to

push the plan through.

“We can’t re-engineer this plan and we can’t change it,” he said,

citing the costliness of redrawing the blueprints. “It’s time to end

the controversy and get this thing approved.”

Hinging the sale of the lower portion on the approval of

development plans for the upper portion will not change things, Henry

said.

“We don’t want that sale to fall though, but that’s not something

we take into consideration,” she said. “We don’t think it’s an

equitable trade-off.”