4 Agencies Find EIR for Koll Project ‘Inadequate’ : Development: Federal and state officials slam proposal for housing on Bolsa Chica wetlands and urge overhaul. Company calls harsh criticism ‘posturing.’

Federal and state officials have lambasted the environmental plan for a proposed 5,000-home development at Bolsa Chica, warning that it is erroneous, deficient and in dire need of an overhaul.

One U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manager called it the worst environmental impact report he has seen in 15 years on the job.

“There are so many places where it is misleading or inadequate,” said Jack Fancher, who supervises wetlands issues in Southern California. “This document fails to accomplish its purpose, which is to . . . lead to good environmental decisions.”

The Koll Co.’s Bolsa Chica project is being analyzed carefully because it impacts an area known as the “crown jewel” of California’s coastal wetlands. The 1,700-acre salt marsh and mesa is one of the largest and best remnants of a rare natural resource, and it attracts thousands of birds and other creatures, including some endangered species.

Koll Co. Senior Vice President Lucy Dunn said the criticism comes as no surprise. Representatives of the firm, which is managing the project for the primary landowner, Signal Bolsa Corp., have already begun meeting with officials of the federal and state agencies to work out the differences.

“Environmental impact reports are made for people to yell at,” Dunn said. “It’s posturing. There’s room to talk. . . . We will continue to work with these agencies to make sure this project goes forward.”

The negative reactions came from four agencies that play key roles in the fate of the project--the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Coastal Commission staff and the California Department of Fish and Game. Their responses, some of which are exceptionally vehement, lay the groundwork for what is expected to be an intense battle over the use of the privately owned ocean-view land at Bolsa Chica.

The Koll Co. proposes building up to 4,884 homes in exchange for preserving and restoring the remaining wetlands. In exchange for development rights, the owners have pledged to donate to the public about 1,000 acres at Bolsa Chica and pay for a $40-million project to create or enhance wetlands on 387 of those acres. They also say they will try to line up other parties to pay for restoration of the rest at an estimated $60 million.

Coming after 30 years of stalemate, their plan is a compromise worked out by the landowners in negotiations with local officials and the Huntington Beach environmental group Amigos de Bolsa Chica.

Officials with the four agencies say the project would violate the state Coastal Act and federal wetlands rules, fails to guarantee ecological restoration and falls far short of compensating for destruction of 135 acres of wetlands.

Some specific problems, they say, include the report’s failure to adequately address the impacts on endangered species such as the peregrine falcon; its reliance on decade-old bird surveys, and an erroneous claim that the bulldozing of seasonal ponds and flats is “insignificant.”

Koll Co. executives say they believe the environmental report independently confirms their claim that their plan is ecologically sound. Their development, they say, is the only way that the public can afford to restore and enhance Bolsa Chica’s degraded wetlands so they are more beneficial to wildlife.

“Here you have a good plan with private money, no taxpayer dollars. Why would they not support this, when they get the land and they get it restored too?” Dunn said.

“The bottom line,” she said, “is that the lowland area is going to the public, except for a small strip across the back, which allows the landowner to make some money in order to give 75% of the site away to the public. Why is it a sin to impact 100 acres when the result will produce more wetlands that are restored?”

Fancher, however, said that claim is reminiscent of what the military used to say about Vietnam--”that you have to destroy a village in order to save it.”

The 400-page environmental impact report--a document designed to be an independent review of the options for the land--was authored by the Chambers Group, a consulting firm hired by the city of Huntington Beach and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The responses from the four agencies are among hundreds of letters about the Bolsa Chica project, from local surfers to national environmental groups, sent to Huntington Beach City Hall before a Dec. 11 deadline.

Linda Phillips, a senior city planner, said she has not sorted through the comments yet, but is aware that the agencies have raised numerous objections. She said she is meeting with the consultants to come up with a strategy and timetable for addressing them.

The EPA issued its response on Friday, and was critical of the report for failing to explain why the project had to be built in a wetlands. The report was also criticized for failing to explore the impact on endangered species, including the California least tern, the California brown pelican and the light-footed clapper rail, and for failing to explain how air pollution generated by the project would be offset.

All this is just a warm-up for a debate that will intensify next year. The Koll Co. project must go before the Huntington Beach City Council, as well as the state Coastal Commission. Several council members have already indicated they have serious reservations about the project, especially its size.

Permits are also needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state Department of Fish and Game. The EPA has the authority to override the Corps of Engineers.

Area developers and environmentalists suspect the battle will ultimately test the state’s Coastal Act and culminate in a lawsuit by the landowners alleging that the government is violating their constitutional rights by banning profitable use of their property.

Initial rebuke of a draft environmental report is certainly not unusual for the four agencies. But the criticisms, and their underlying contention that the project is untenable and potentially illegal, is especially harsh. All four urged not just an overhaul of the environmental report, but of the entire project.

“We strongly advise against certification of the document,” Christiane Parry, deputy manager of the state Coastal Commission’s ocean resources unit, said in a letter to Huntington Beach city planners and the Corps of Engineers. Parry went on to “strongly urge . . . a new project design.”

The state Fish and Game Department stated that each of its eight major concerns “has been largely to entirely ignored” in the Koll Co. development plan.

In their letters, the four agencies seemed adamant that the development must stay out of all wetlands and remain on the mesa, which has less value to wildlife. Efforts to artificially restore or create new wetlands are highly uncertain, and many projects fail, they said.

Bolsa Chica Debate The 1,700-acre Bolsa Chica area includes 1,000 acres of wetlands, only 300 of which are The 1,700-acre Bolsa Chica area includes 1,000 acres of wetlands, only 300 of which are protected in a state ecological reserve. The rest are in private hands, and the landowners, managed by the Koll Co., have an ambitious development plan: Development details: Up to 4,884 homes would be built over 20 years, mostly on the less-ecologically sensitive mesa but also on 111 acres of degraded wetlands. A road and other public improvements in the area would damage another 35 acres of wetlands. The offer: Landowners, in exchange for development rights, have offered to spend about $40 million to create 111 acres of new wetlands and restore another 276 acres, before any construction. They would turn the deed over to the public for about 800 acres, mostly wetlands, and would try to line up other parties to pay for an additional $60 million in restoration. The debate: Should some wetlands be permanently sacrificed in exchange for preservation and restoration of the rest? Wildlife officials and environmentalists say no, that wetlands are so rare that every acre should be protected until public monies are available for restoration. Developers say they are the only available source of the money, and that the wetlands are continuing to degrade. The laws: Federal and state agencies are opposed to the project primarily because the state Coastal Act and federal laws impose strict limits on what can be built in wetlands. Housing, roads and commercial projects are generally not allowed. Projects, however, are often approved if the landowner guarantees mitigation, usually in the form of three to five newly created or enhanced acres of wetlands for every acre destroyed. What’s next: Koll Co. is negotiating with city, state and federal officials in preparation for decisions next year and in 1994. The Huntington Beach City Council will probably hear the proposal next summer. Sources: Koll Co., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Coastal Commission