Bolsa Chica Builder Sues Coastal Panel

The tortured tale of Bolsa Chica took another twist Friday, when the owner and would-be developer sued the California Coastal Commission, alleging that the agency illegally “took” the property by so severely restricting what could be built that development was no longer economically feasible.

Bolsa Chica, between Seal Beach and Huntington Beach, boasts the largest wetlands complex in Southern California and is a key stopover for migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway. More than 1,200 acres of wetlands have been saved in what has become one of the most costly restoration efforts in state history.

In November, the commission slashed developable land to a 65-acre upper tier of a 230-acre mesa there.

The suit, filed in Orange County Superior Court by real estate developer Hearthside Homes Inc. and landowner Signal Landmark, alleges that the decision violated state and federal law. It seeks unspecified monetary damages and permission to develop the entire mesa.

Calling the commission’s decision “arbitrary” and “irrational,” the lawsuit says “the reasons assembled by the commission’s staff as justification for the action are not based on substantial evidence and are in some cases downright dishonest.”

Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, said he had not yet seen the complaint.

“I’m disappointed they’ve chosen that course,” he said. “There’s no question that the commission had the factual basis and the legal basis to make the decision they did. This is another decision that the company has made that I don’t think is very smart.”

Raymond J. Pacini, chief executive officer of Hearthside and Signal, declined to comment, saying the companies’ policy is to not discuss pending litigation.

Jim Burling, a property-rights attorney with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, said the case clearly constitutes a “taking” of private land.

“The Coastal Commission is pathologically incapable of recognizing when they steal private property,” he said. “From the long history of what has happened to this property, the bottom line is the landowners cannot use it, and the public is using that property instead for ecological purposes.”

But monetary damages may be unlikely, Burling said.

“California courts are loathe to assess money damages against government agencies in a takings case,” he said.

*

In 1970, Signal’s predecessor, the Signal Bolsa Corp., bought about 2,000 acres at Bolsa Chica for about $20 million. Since then, Signal and its affiliates have spent about $90 million trying to develop the land.

Various proposals have won Coastal Commission approval--in 1986, ’96 and ‘97--and seen involvement by Congress, federal agencies and state officials.

The project was once envisioned as a marina, hotels and 5,700 homes on 1,547 acres, but it has been dramatically scaled back in the wake of a series of court challenges by activists.

Flossie Horgan, a co-founder of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, said: “This developer has acquired land as a speculation. Over the years, their plans have had to change as circumstances have changed in California relating to natural resources.”

She added that the delay of the lawsuit will give the land trust more time to find funding to try to buy the property.

At the November hearing, the commission voted unanimously to limit development to 65 acres to ensure that fragile wetlands, as well as raptors that forage in the mesa, are not affected. The commission also added several conditions, including immediate improvement of a freeway interchange, a scenic road around the upper portion of the mesa, maximum development of three stories and water-quality standards.

The lawsuit says the evidence used to justify protecting the raptors was scientifically suspect. It charges that the commission ignored state Department of Fish and Game officials, who said the developer’s proposal would actually protect endangered wetland birds who otherwise risked being eaten by raptors.

“These onerous demands, accompanied by newly concocted ‘findings,’ are proof that the commission’s decision was motivated by one goal: Stop development in any way possible,” the complaint says.

The suit also alleges that a development of 1,235 three-story homes is “physically infeasible.”

“Even if it were somehow possible . . . such a monstrous, vertically packed development of condominiums and apartments would be wholly out of character to the surrounding neighborhood and do violence to years of careful county planning,” the complaint says.

But Douglas said the developer still has plenty of land to build on.

“We were very sensitive to that issue, and I think that was fully addressed,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that they have chosen to spend money on litigation rather than getting on with their project. It seems like the never-ending story.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Ongoing Land Battle

Developer Hearthside Homes and landowner Signal Landmark sued the California Coastal Commission on Friday, alleging that the state agency so restricted development on the Bolsa Chica mesa last year that it is not economcally feasible. The project has been repeatedly scaled back.

Sources: Hearthside Homes, California Coastal Commission