Middle Ground Is Best for Bolsa Chica : Koll Co.’s Plan or No Development Both Unrealistic

The tension between growth and new development and the preservation of the environment has played out dramatically in recent years in the fiercely contested debate over the future of the development proposed for the Bolsa Chica area in Huntington Beach.

The proposal for a huge new housing development has some people believing that no development is the best plan of all. That’s clearly unrealistic.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is the developer, the Koll Co., which has proposed a 4,286-acre development with a road transecting the area and a $20-million inlet connecting the wetlands to the ocean as part of a restoration project. It now appears that’s really an unrealistic idea too.

Now comes the county’s Environmental Management Agency’s approach. It has weighed in with a suggestion that two plans be considered, one that would offer 3,200 homes and another with only 2,500.

While there were mixed reviews initially, it is somewhere in this middling range that reality must set in for the various parties. This is true if for no other reason than that the county’s opinion counts so much in the process of review and approval. It must sign off on anything that is proposed, and it properly sees part of its role as balancing competing concerns of the environment and development.

The range of proposals that has existed on this project illustrates the difficulty in finding a viable middle ground somewhere on the broad spectrum between the extreme points of view. But the county, in the search for something that will fly in the overheated political environment, should be credited with recognizing the stakes for Huntington Beach and for taking the process of study and review as seriously as it has.

It has taken comment on its environmental impact report under advisement along with the extensive criticism it received from environmentalists. According to Thomas B. Mathews, director of planning for the agency, the county “determined that in order to develop a viable plan, we would have to substantially revise the document, so we decided to write a new one.”

The new report gives evidence of a laudable commitment to find something that is environmentally sound, that respects the developers’ rights and searches out politically viable ground for proceeding with development.

The question now is just what deal can be done, and the voice of the county necessarily must be a strong one at the table. Clearly, the developer is being sent a message by the county’s experts that it had better be prepared to revise downward its expectations for the size of development.

The review process has moved into a 45-day period of comment. This is a crucially important project for the city of Huntington Beach and for the county. Since the hope of the agency is to “break the logjam,” to use Mathews’ words, all interested parties should use this opportunity to have their say.

One way or another, the county has made it clear that it intends to carve out some compromise territory, and that means it is reality check time for all the participants.