Disney Seeks a Special Law for Long Beach Park

In an attempt to head off objections from the California Coastal Commission, the Walt Disney Co. is seeking special legislation to spell out its authority to build a $2-billion Long Beach waterfront theme park.

At issue is whether the California Coastal Act allows transforming more than 200 acres of shoreline and ocean habitat near the Queen Mary into Disney’s proposed entertainment complex.

“The purpose of this legislation is to clarify and just confirm that Port Disney would be permissible under the Coastal Act,” said Carl DeWing, spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy of Fresno, who is sponsoring the bill on behalf of Disney.

The company has announced its intention to build a second West Coast theme park either at the Long Beach waterfront or beside Disneyland in Anaheim. Disney executives Monday said it was too early to tell whether they might go ahead with both projects. Company officials said a decision on a site could come by the end of the year.

They stressed that both projects remain very much alive and that they are going forward with planning at both sites.

In Anaheim, Disney has been negotiating to buy or lease large tracts of land surrounding Disneyland. In Long Beach, the company has been proceeding with environmental studies on the park, hotels and restaurants.

Disney executives maintain that the Long Beach project--specifically filling open waters for the complex--is allowed under the California Coastal Act. The specific development plans must be approved by the commission and other agencies. The bill was in response to Coastal Commission staff voicing concerns that the project may not be suited for the coastline.

“For good business reasons, we wanted to clarify” the law, said Alan Epstein, vice president of Disney Development Co., responsible for the Long Beach project.

“There’s a technical question about whether recreation uses are permitted on new landfill,” he said. “We think the answer is yes. And we want that answer to be confirmed and clarified by the Legislature. The Maddy bill, he said, would make it clear that such a use is authorized under the law.”

Peter Douglas, executive director of the Coastal Commission, could not be reached for comment.

Long Beach City Manager James C. Hankla said that even if the legislation is enacted, the Coastal Commission and other agencies would probably require Disney to take steps to mitigate adverse environmental effects.

In its current form, the measure deals with Coastal Act exemptions for universities. Maddy spokesman DeWing said the measure, introduced March 8, would be amended to be “specific to the city of Long Beach only.”

Hankla said he doubted that the proposal would pave the way for other coastal areas to be turned into theme parks. “There are very few places in urbanized California that could accommodate something like this,” Hankla said.

Hankla also downplayed the importance of the ocean habitat. “Let’s face it, the area to be filled is probably not a unique marine environment,” Hankla said, noting that the shoreline around the Port of Long Beach repeatedly has been filled over the years.

Darryl Young, lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said his group has not taken a position on the Maddy legislation but has “some serious concerns” about the project. Young cited concerns about potential damage to wetlands and the effect of the Disney project on traffic and air pollution.

“Hopefully, we can eke out a solution that both protects our natural resources in the Southland and protects the economic vitality” of the area, he said.