Bolsa Chica Ally on Coastal Panel May Face Ouster

Less than a month after taking control, the new Republican majority on the California Coastal Commission on Monday called an unusual special meeting next week in Huntington Beach to consider firing the agency’s longtime executive director and beginning a search for a successor if necessary.

Acting Commission Chairman Louis Calcagno ordered the issuance of a notice Monday calling the special July 12 meeting to consider the continued employment of Peter Douglas as the panel’s executive director.

Douglas, who coauthored the act in 1972 that created the agency, has at times clashed with both Republicans and Democrats on the commission over his opposition to some major coastal developments.

Less than six months ago, the commission’s majority overruled Douglas and his staff in a major Orange County environmental debate, whether to permit the building of 900 homes in the ecologically sensitive Bolsa Chica wetlands. Douglas’ staff recommended against the homes, but the full commission voted to allow them.

The apparent move against Douglas, who has been with the panel since 1977, sparked outrage from environmental groups.

“This is nothing less than a full frontal attack on the California coastal protection program,” said Anne Notthoff of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Peter has been the conscience of the coastal program for its entire life. He is recognized nationally as one of the originators of developing coastal programs nationwide. This is not a personnel issue. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the California coast.”

Calcagno, an appointee of Gov. Pete Wilson, could not be reached for comment, but Wilson’s spokesman said that the governor considers it proper and appropriate to “review the scope, nature and operation of the commission” and that includes the executive director’s performance.

Wilson spokesman Sean Walsh said the decision on whether to fire Douglas is up to the 12-member commission. Douglas has been with the panel since the Brown administration, Walsh noted. “It is healthy for any government bureaucracy to take a look at itself.”

The move to consider firing Douglas comes at a time when the commission charged with protecting California’s scenic 1,100-mile coastline from overdevelopment is dominated by eight Republican appointees for the first time in its history as a result of the GOP takeover of the state Assembly.

The change has stirred concern among environmentalists.

“These new commissioners will probably allow a submarine port at Bolsa Chica. They could probably build a new Disneyland out there,” said Flossie Horgan, co-founder of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, a Huntington Beach-based environmental group that opposes building homes in Bolsa Chica.

Republican pollster Arnold Steinberg, appointed to the panel by Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove), said Monday that he wants to re-form the commission. “It is a reasonable question to ask whether a new executive director would be better able to do that,” Steinberg said, adding that he does not know how he will vote on the future of Douglas.

“I have only attended one meeting,” Steinberg said. “I’m going to be looking for a certain amount of guidance [about how to vote] from others who have more experience on the commission.”

Commissioner Patricia Randa, another recent Pringle appointee, said word of the special meeting came as a surprise.

Before they were sworn in as commissioners, Steinberg and Randa had a long history of battling with the commission over development of homes in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Douglas, chief of the powerful agency for 11 years and coauthor of California’s landmark 1972 coastal protection initiative, has clashed with powerful interests on major coastal development projects during his tenure.

In two recent cases, Douglas has been at odds with key Wilson administration officials on Southern California coastal projects. They involve the Bolsa Chica controversy next to Huntington Beach and efforts by Southern California Edison to roll back requirements that the utility undertake an expensive program to offset the impact of the San Onofre nuclear power plant on the marine environment off the northern San Diego County coast.

Douglas opposed development of the 900 homes in Bolsa Chica, saying it was inconsistent with the state’s coastal protection law. However, the commission ultimately rejected his advice and approved the entire project.

Douglas also refused to approve a plan that would allow Edison to eliminate major elements to ease the effect of hot water discharges from the power plant. In that case, the commission deadlocked 6-6 last November.

A Democratic appointee, Coastal Commissioner Gary Giacomini, said “the fix is in” to fire Douglas. He said the tie vote on San Onofre marked the beginning of an all-out effort to get the executive director.

Ironically, since then, Douglas has received a favorable performance review and a significant pay raise.

Giacomini said that after talking with Republican commission members he believes that Douglas is being targeted because the executive director approves staff reports that often take a hard line against development. Those documents are often introduced in court cases when environmentalists challenge the commission’s subsequent approval of the projects.

Douglas said in an interview that his removal would destroy the independence of the commission and severely undermine the program designed to protect California’s coast. Late Monday, he faxed commissioners a letter requesting that the discussion about his future be held in public not behind closed doors, as is his right under state law.

“We all know that conflict and controversy are facts of life at the Coastal Commission,” Douglas said in a statement. “The coast is a finite, fragile and special place where powerful interests and forces collide. . . . The economic, social, environmental and emotional stakes in the outcome of decisions the commission makes are enormous.”

Douglas said he serves at the pleasure of the commission, but he warned that his removal would mark the politicization of the panel’s staff.

“If the staff is politicized, that to me is the death knell of California’s coastal program,” he said. “We simply can’t do our job. We would be violating the public trust if we make our recommendations on a subjective level.”

The split between the staff and the commission was rarely more evident than in the Bolsa Chica decision. The swath of marshland is home to a number of endangered species of birds and is widely believed to be the largest unprotected coastal wetlands south of San Francisco.

For years, environmentalists have fought plans by the Koll Real Estate Group to build the 900 homes in part of the wetlands area and another 2,400 homes on an adjoining mesa. Koll pledged to restore another portion of the wetlands.

Environmentalists cheered a November 1995 Coastal Commission staff report that recommended doing away with the 900 homes on the wetlands on the grounds that they did not conform with the state’s coastal protection law.

But Koll lashed out at the report, with Senior Vice President Lucy Dunn accusing Coastal Commission staff members of taking an ostrich-like stance. “Basically, the staff put their heads in the sand and didn’t resolve 20 years’ worth of issues,” Dunn said last fall.

Koll officials were jubilant in January when the commission rejected the staff report and voted 8-3 in favor of the entire development of 3,300 homes.

In the other case that some believe may have led to Douglas’ current troubles, the commission staff took issue with Southern California Edison’s efforts to roll back mitigation efforts at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Scientific studies had determined that the plant was destroying kelp and that its cooling system was sucking up and killing 21 to 57 tons of fish and 4 billion eggs and larvae annually. A 1991 mitigation plan, approved by the commission, required Edison to reduce damage with steps such as building a 300-acre artificial reef, restoring a wetlands and contributing money for a marine-fish hatchery.

But Edison approached the Coastal Commission last year, saying that new research showed the plant was not hurting kelp as much as once believed, and that the mitigation program’s price tag was soaring from $30 million to as much as $160 million.

Environmentalists vehemently objected when Edison sought to curtail the mitigation plan--for instance, substituting a 12-acre experimental reef for the 300-acre reef scheduled to be built between Dana Point and Camp Pendleton.

And the Coastal Commission staff concluded that Edison should have to hold to the 1991 plan, with Douglas writing, “A deal is a deal, and all parties should be held to their commitments.”

Also contributing to this report was Times staff writer Dan Morain from Sacramento.