Coastal Panel Faces Golf Course Hazard in Seal Beach Project

California’s coastal commissioners face a political minefield next month when they are due to decide the future of a much-disputed plan for homes, restored wetlands and a golf course near the ocean in Seal Beach.

If they vote the way their staff recommends, they could derail the Hellman Ranch project, which has the staunch backing of city officials.

And if they ignore their staff’s advice and follow the city’s wishes by approving the plan, they risk the wrath of environmentalists, who say they would be sacrificing scarce coastal wetlands to build a golf course, thus ignoring basic tenets of the state Coastal Act.

Projects can prove especially troubling for commissioners if they pose environmental questions but have strong local support--which is exactly the case at Hellman Ranch.

“The Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission’s role is to look at things from a statewide perspective,” commission vice chairwoman Sara Wan said Thursday. “Unfortunately, that’s not always one and the same with the local jurisdiction.”

The state’s interest, she said, “is in protecting its coastal wetlands.”

The proposal calls for 70 luxury homes, the golf course, 28 acres of restored wetlands and 16 acres earmarked for future wetlands or open space.

Though the Hellman Ranch vote always promised to be a ticklish one--both legally and politically--its importance escalated this week with the release of a staff report that made a startling 180-degree turn on whether the project’s golf course complies with the Coastal Act.

The staff earlier accepted the 18-hole golf course, albeit with some changes. Now, much to the consternation of the developer, the staff wants the golf course struck from the plans.

“Filling wetlands to build a golf course is not consistent with Coastal Act protection policies,” executive director Peter Douglas wrote in the new report.

Dave Bartlett, the project point man for developer Hellman Properties LLC of Seal Beach, said this week that the company will “absolutely not” proceed if the golf course is canceled.

Bartlett bristled at the turn of events.

“Obviously, we don’t like it,” he said Thursday. “We’re going to analyze the report. We’re going to have our attorneys analyze the legal implications. And we’re going to be prepared to make our case at the Coastal Commission, which we feel will be embraced.”

And if not? “It may not be too long before there will be another commission,” Bartlett said.

Commission makeup can change dramatically after elections because members are appointed by the governor and Legislature.

Commission members contacted Thursday were unwilling to say how they will vote at the June 10 meeting. But their comments hinted at how tangled the decision has become.

“It’s a difficult project, because I think the design they’ve come in with is by far the most sensitive plan they’ve had for the site,” said Commissioner Mike Reilly, a Sonoma County supervisor. But the constraints of the Coastal Act appear to cloud the potential for filling some wetlands for a golf course, he said.

Pedro Nava, a commissioner from Santa Barbara, congratulated Douglas for having the courage to rethink the project. He said he had been troubled by the developer’s plan to replace only one acre of wetlands for every wetlands acre built upon--contrary to the 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio usually required. Because wetlands restorations are prone to failure, he said, the 1-to-1 plan “would be an extremely precarious ratio.”

But commissioner Dave Potter, chairman of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, questioned whether the staff correctly followed the commissioners’ instructions when an April vote was postponed.

The staff was not directed to eliminate the golf course, Potter said Thursday after listening to a meeting tape. Instead, the staff was instructed to rework the project so that it was legally defensible and fit with the Coastal Act, he said. “It seems like a very, very abrupt turnaround.”

The staff report mentions the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles as potential sources of funds for restoring wetlands like those at Hellman Ranch. When the ports expand into the ocean and destroy marine habitat, they are required to “mitigate” or compensate by paying to restore wetlands elsewhere.

“I’m always looking for mitigation credits,” said Geraldine Knatz, director of planning and environmental affairs at the Port of Long Beach. But she is keeping her distance from the Hellman project.

“My feeling is: We want to do a restoration in a community that wants a restoration,” she said. “My sense is the city wants this golf course. . . . We’re not going to go where we’re not wanted.”

The June 10 meeting is to begin at 9 a.m. at the Radisson Hotel Santa Barbara, 1111 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Santa Barbara. More details, including the text of the commission staff report, are available on line at https://www.ceres.ca.gov/coastalcomm/index.html