Huntington Beach Urged to Oppose Plan for Bolsa Chica Wetlands Development

Huntington Beach City Administrator Paul Cook is urging the City Council to reject a controversial state bill to establish a governing district for creation of a $300-million marina and housing development in the environmentally sensitive Bolsa Chica wetlands.

Cook said Friday that the city will ask the bill’s author, state Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) to withdraw the legislation until studies on the plan’s environmental and financial impacts--and its technical feasibility--are completed.

The council, which had canceled a scheduled public hearing Thursday on the issue, will now decide Tuesday whether to support the newly amended bill. City sources said Friday that it appeared council support for the proposed legislation was dwindling.

“We are at the bottom line here,” Cook said Friday. “We are getting towards spending $200,000 (for consultants and attorneys to review the bill) and the clock is still ticking, and we feel we have to say, ‘OK, let’s stop this nonsense.’

“We could go on forever here amending the bill, spending $200 an hour for attorneys reviewing each amendment that comes forth, and it’s just not fair to taxpayers to keep paying for this. It’s time to take a stand, let the legislators know where we stand and let them decide what they want to do.”

Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder, a Huntington Beach resident and former mayor, said late Friday that she will await council action before backing Bergeson’s legislation.

“I will be sending her (Bergeson) a letter saying I’m withholding any further support of the bill until the council takes a position,” said Wieder, who is a candidate for the 42nd Congressional District seat.

The bill would establish a special district that could levy fees and govern early stages of a development planned by Signal Landmark Inc. Signal has proposed building 5,700 homes and a 1,400-slip marina with a navigable ocean entrance on unincorporated land south of Warner Avenue along Pacific Coast Highway. The bill also would provide some money for restoration of 915 acres of degraded wetlands.

Chief among the city’s concerns is how much the development will cost and who will pay for it, said Rich Barnard, assistant to the city administrator. He also cited the potential for sand erosion at nearby beaches that may be caused by the proposed ocean entrance, and environmental concerns as reasons for the staff’s decision.

“We’re creating a district without knowing what the economic, environmental and technical impacts are going to be,” Barnard said. “It’s like baking a pie without knowing what the ingredients are.”

Julie Froeberg, Bergeson’s chief of staff, said Friday that she was “a little puzzled” by the city staff’s recommendation, and by the decision to vote on the matter without a public hearing.

“The amendments that they’ve blasted are amendments that the city agreed to” in a series of ad hoc meetings, Froeberg said. “We’re encouraging the city to reconsider.”

While Froeberg said the bill strengthened protections for the wetlands and of the beaches, Cook disagreed. “The bill is weaker in those regards than the last time we read it,” Cook said.

Barnard said that the bill is scheduled to go before the state Assembly Natural Resources Committee on June 20.