Bolsa Chica Fight Isn’t Over

One of Orange County’s longest-running controversies--what to do with the Bolsa Chica mesa and wetlands--took another unexpected turn this month when the Orange County Planning Commission approved construction of 388 luxury houses on land overlooking the north end of the estuary.

The proposal marked yet another reduction from the original development plan that would have blanketed Bolsa Chica with a marina, hotels and 5,700 homes.

The latest iteration won’t end the long-running land dispute. This is, after all, Bolsa Chica. Proponents of an outright ban on development at the site will appeal the commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors. The developer is heading into a courtroom to fight a California Coastal Commission decision that severely restricted its development rights.

This argument has been raging for more than 30 years--a figure that approaches the median age of county residents.

One overriding truth is that Bolsa Chica’s heritage as a natural gem is going to be preserved. Despite significant environmental damage, the 1,200-acre wetlands is an important refuge for migratory birds and endangered species, including chatty California least terns that nest there each May.

A big piece of the Bolsa Chica puzzle was solved last year when the state, which now owns 800 acres of the wetlands, announced plans for a $100-million restoration plan. The agreement guarantees that the wetlands won’t dissolve into a mirror image of the upscale Huntington Harbour development just north of Warner Avenue.

That leaves the thornier problem of an acceptable level of development on the so-called lower and upper mesas, land near Warner Avenue that overlooks the wetlands. The attitude among those who oppose any construction is summed up in a line from a recent letter to the editor: “Compromise is not acceptable.”

The next move is up to Signal Landmark, the landowner that had hoped to build more than 1,000 homes on the 230-acre mesa. The state Coastal Commission in November limited development to 65 acres on the upper area of the mesa, a move that prompted the lawsuit alleging that the commission’s development restrictions effectively have “taken” the land away.

Development opponents might be hoping to hear a judicial response that echoes a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving property-rights advocates in Lake Tahoe. The landowners in that case unsuccessfully argued that the government owed them “just compensation” because development restrictions had prevented them using their land during a construction moratorium.

Signal Landmark hopes to recoup costs of buying the land and planning for development by squeezing a check out of the state Coastal Commission. If the court challenge fails, it would mean that a sale of land once slated for development would make more sense than ever. It could be time for Signal Landmark and development opponents to discuss a fair purchase price.

Those who wish to see the land saved from development must be prepared to come to the table with a realistic proposal. Signal Landmark, aware of the proposed project’s history of delays and reversals, should come to the table ready to negotiate. The question remains, at what price can a deal be done?