Valley Commentary : Environmental Resources Are Adrift in a SEA of Bureaucracy : Significant Ecological Areas have declined in quality because officialdom can’t or won’t act. Court action may be the only way to rescue these open-space preserves.

If a poll taker asked for a definition of the acronym SEA, most people would have no idea. Yet Significant Ecological Areas are important if one believes that Southern California is well on its way to becoming wall-to-wall housing tracts and commercial zones.

SEAs are designated by Los Angeles County as open spaces of special value for native plants and wildlife that must be preserved from inappropriate development. They were included in the county’s General Plan in 1980, five years after a lawsuit alleging a lack of open-space protection in the plan forced the Board of Supervisors to rewrite it.

Some of the excellent SEAs are Tujunga Wash, Santa Susana Pass, Chatsworth Reservoir and the Santa Clara River.

It sounded wonderful, containing a commitment “to preserve the county’s ecological resources and habitat areas in as viable a natural condition as possible.” Those of us with affection for canyons, wetlands and woodlands took heart. Alas, we were soon disenchanted.

*

The board was controlled by a conservative majority--Michael Antonovich, Deane Dana and Pete Schabarum--that never met a developer it didn’t like. They were unable to get rid of SEAs, but they were not obligated to make them work.

SEAs are almost all in private hands. Under the General Plan, homes may be built “at densities compatible with the resource values present.” Who decides what’s a compatible density? A technical advisory committee of volunteer biologists, called SEATAC, was set up to make this judgment. But it was given no real power. It can only advise and suggest. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors make all the decisions.

Over time, SEAs have gradually declined in quality. With increased population and the disappearance of land suitable for homes close to jobs, developers have reached out to more distant locations, which is where the SEAs are. Permits to build were generously issued until some of the SEAs were so exploited that they lost the values that made them significant. SEATAC cannot monitor the condition of the 61 SEAs because the county refused to pay for a study. The county can protect an SEA by buying it, but the supervisors have successfully resisted the temptation. Although federal and state agencies have sought to acquire SEAs--and had the funds--they received no encouragement or cooperation from the county.

What can be done to stop the eventual destruction of SEAs? A tough question. Electing a Board of Supervisors that gives a damn would help. Changing the General Plan to further restrict development in SEAs might make a difference. Buying them outright would solve the problem.

At this time the answer must be: None of the above. What about the courts? Several lawsuits have been filed recently, and that may indicate a way out. A strong challenge to the inadequate SEA system is called for, a test case that will establish genuine protection for natural habitats.

One is in the works.

*

As you approach Magic Mountain going north on Interstate 5 from Los Angeles, you pass a marvelous stretch of undisturbed valley oaks. These elegant trees with their wide sweeping branches are surrounded by grassland that rises gently to form low, sensuous hills. Because this habitat is so scarce, 300 acres was designated SEA 64, Valley Oaks Savannah. There are about 1,200 oaks in the SEA, one of the last two remaining oak savannahs in Southern California.

What many people were dreading finally came to pass. A project was proposed for almost 2,000 homes and a golf course for 200 acres of the SEA. SEATAC, the California Parks Department and even the staff of the county Planning Department opposed the project. But the Planning Commission and the supervisors approved it anyway. Environmentalists sued, charging inconsistencies with the General Plan and violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

*

In June, 1993, the court agreed that the project would generate excessive air pollution and overtax school and library facilities. Unfortunately, the judge did not rule on the most important issue: the county’s refusal to adhere to its own General Plan.

The case was appealed. A favorable decision would establish the precedent that the county must honor the spirit of the General Plan. A victory would mean the potential rescue of all SEAs from their inevitable oblivion. Unhappily, a procedural error by the plaintiffs threw the case out and the opportunity was missed. Bad luck, but not the end of the world. Another lawsuit is in the making for SEA 64.