Council considers annexing wetlands

Huntington Beach is jumping back into the controversial Bolsa Chica

debate, considering whether to annex a scaled-down housing project on

wetlands many city leaders spent years fighting to protect.

What was once a plan to build more than 5,700 homes, a marina and

several hundred acres of commercial buildings on the sprawling

wetlands in north Huntington Beach has been cut back to a 384-unit

luxury home project that leaves 90% of the wetlands available for

open space and restoration.

Now Huntington Beach officials are considering annexing the 105

acres of land slated for the luxury development on a bluff

overlooking the wetlands.

On Monday, the council voted 5-2 to file the necessary paperwork

to start the annexation process, reserving the option to halt the

process at any time.

“Just starting the process doesn’t obligate either one of us,”

Councilman Don Hansen said. “But if we don’t start this process,

neither one of us can go forward and we won’t be able to cash in on

the benefits for the city.”

The property is in unincorporated Orange County but is surrounded

by Huntington Beach. The new residents would likely want to be

annexed into Huntington Beach after they moved in, Councilman Keith

Bohr said. If a majority of homeowners voted to join the city,

Huntington Beach would have to take them.

Since annexation is likely, he argued, the city should look at

annexing the property before it is developed so that it can collect

the appropriate building fees and potentially have a greater stake in

the process.

The city stands to gain about $19 million in one-time fees if it

annexes the housing tract before it is developed. About $11 million

of that money would come from fees the city would collect to make up

for a lack of park space in the proposed development; hypothetically,

the money would be used to purchase more park space throughout the

city.

Officials from developer Hearthside Homes disputed that amount,

arguing that county and California Coastal Commission environmental

regulations required Hearthside to include nearly 35 acres for

environmental setbacks, protected habitat areas and interpretive

trails, another 49 acres for the continuation of Harriet Wieder Park

and two acres of common open fields in the housing tract.

“Clearly it is unreasonable to assume that Hearthside would pay in

lieu parks fees in addition to dedicating 85 acres for open space and

park purposes,” Senior Vice President Ed Mountford wrote in a letter

to the city.

Several council members disagreed that the open space was

adequate. Children living at the new development need playgrounds and

fields for sports, not restricted-access habitats and vistas, said

Mayor Jill Hardy.

“Trails do not count as open space, village greens do not count as

open space and undeveloped wetlands do not count as open space,” she

said during the council meeting Monday. “We need something that the

children can play in, and play on -- not something they can only look

at beyond the fence.”

The park fees would likely be offset by the savings Hearthside

officials would enjoy by not having to run an eight-mile pipeline

from Westminster down Bolsa Chica Street, several council members

argued. If the project were annexed, the developer could simply link

into the city’s water system.

Councilwoman Debbie Cook said she thought Mountford and others

were underestimating the cost of the pipeline as a possible

negotiating tool to decrease the park fees.

Hearthside’s Mountford estimated the pipeline, which would include

a 1.2 million-gallon reservoir and several pump stations, would cost

about $8 million. Cook said she believed the figure would be nearly

twice that amount. Councilman Bohr asked city officials to prepare

their own analysis on the cost of the pipeline.

Cook, who voted against proceeding with the annexation study, said

she had concerns about the property tax assessments on the site and

argued that while the city would collect some additional property

taxes from annexation, only a fraction of it would be available in

the general fund. Most of the money would be earmarked by state and

local law for services such as fire protection and libraries.

Hardy also voted against annexation, arguing that the process was

premature until the sale of about 103 acres of wetlands was

finalized. Hearthside officials said their shareholders won’t approve

the deal until it gets a permit on the project from the California

Coastal Commission, which approved the project in March but required

the builder to meet 27 special conditions on the property.

Bohr said he believed Hearthside was holding up the sale of the

property as a negotiating tactic.

“I don’t see Hearthside shareholders walking away from $65 million

of undevelopable wetlands,” he said.