City’s Response to Bolsa Chica Report Assailed : Wetlands: Koll official questions whether Huntington Beach’s criticism of environmental study is a delaying tactic.

A county official Tuesday accused the Huntington Beach City Council of injecting politics into consideration of the environmental impact report for the proposed development of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.

Tom Mathews, Orange County’s director of environmental planning, whose office prepared the report, said he would not discuss the council’s criticisms while the draft report is open for public comment, a period that ends Friday.

On Monday night, the council voted 4-2 to ask the county to write a new report, contending that the current study violates state law, does not sufficiently consider a reasonable range of alternative sites for development and does not take into consideration costs to the city.

Lucy Dunn, senior vice president of the Koll Real Estate Group, which plans to build 4,286 homes on 400 acres in the wetlands, questioned whether the council’s response is an attempt to slow the development.

“I hope when I read the comment letter that there is substance there and it’s not just a delaying tactic,” she said.

In its written response to the draft study, the city said restoration of the wetlands, “which seems to form the sole justification for the county’s approval of the project, is unlikely to occur.

“It would occur, if at all, 20 to 30 years after Koll has constructed its approximately 4,000-unit housing project atop the Mesa,” the report said. The Koll company has proposed to spend $48 million to restore 1,100 acres of wetlands in exchange for the right to build homes on the rest.

In a 245-page comment, to be delivered to county officials by Friday, city officials claimed:

* The draft report violates state laws because it fails to look at the entire project, and fails to seek federal approval for development in wetlands while seeking state approval for construction on a mesa.

* That local officials are being asked to approve conclusions in the report on faith, in violation of environmental quality acts, the report claims.

* The report fails to consider “a reasonable range” of alternate locations for the development.

* The report doesn’t adequately detail possible hazards in event of explosions, earthquakes and other disasters in the area.

* The report should call on the county to require Koll to pay for the project’s fiscal impact to the city for roads and services before development permits are issued. A preliminary city study sets these costs at about $58 million.

* The report should have addressed the impact of the entire Koll project of 4,884 homes, not just the 4,286 in the county’s jurisdiction. There are 598 homes, not addressed in the report, that are planned within city limits.

Councilman David Sullivan, a leading critic of the county’s draft report, asserted that Koll’s only obligation to restore the wetlands will come if it can get a federal permit.

“Under this faulty process, the Koll Co. could get approvals for 75% of its projects without making any commitment to restoration. I fear that this might be the company’s goal,” Sullivan said.

Councilmen Earle Robitaille and Jim Silva voted against sending the comments to the county. Both expressed support for the project.

Robitaille, who accused his colleagues of throwing up roadblocks, said the cost of fighting the proposed development could climb as high as $500,000 by the time an economic impact report is completed and consultants are paid. The price of staff time could swell city costs further, he said.

Robitaille said Tuesday that the county staff and the city staff should work out details and get the project started without “political posturing” on the part of City Council members.

Councilman Victor Leipzig said that the city’s expense may be “unfortunate” but is necessary.

Times Staff Writer David Haldane contributed to this report.