Big Fight Over Small Site

It doesn’t look like much--a trash-filled patch of ground bordered by roads and construction trailers. But the land is at the center of the latest clash about the value of wetlands.

Two members of the California Coastal Commission are challenging a city permit that allows a builder to bulldoze the small, isolated wetland in Huntington Beach for homes. Commission staff members last week released a strongly worded recommendation backing the challenge.

Though the developer and city officials dismiss the significance of this site, environmentalists say so much of the region’s natural wetlands have been destroyed that what remains must be preserved regardless of condition--even if this means forgoing a developer’s offer to create a larger wetlands elsewhere.

“We’ve lost so much of our wetlands that every little inch does count,” said Marcia Hanscom, executive director of the Wetlands Action Network, noting that 95% of wetlands in this region have been destroyed.

Coastal wetlands are a special habitat for plants such as coastal live oak, beach evening primrose, sea lavender, eel grass and a variety of sages. They also act as natural filters for urban runoff and feeding grounds for migratory birds.

The 0.8-acre wetland in question was to be filled in during construction of up to 230 townhouses and duplexes by the Robert Mayer Corp. on about 23 acres off Beach Boulevard near Pacific Coast Highway.

Under the city’s permit conditions, the developer had to compensate for the environmental damage by creating one acre of wetland and enhancing 1.4 acres of transitional wetland, upland and woodland habitat in the Shipley Nature Center to the north--a so-called mitigation effort worth about $500,000 that developers and city officials said was ecologically superior to preserving what they call an urban runoff-fed puddle.

“This wetland is highly degraded. It’s basically a depression in the ground,” said Shawn K. Millbern, senior vice president of the Newport Beach developer. “It’s not a diverse ecosystem. . . . Any little animal trying to get over there would be run over by cars on the highway.”

This debate touches upon a larger issue that is affecting projects up and down the coast. Development proposals often call for filling existing wetlands and restoring or creating substantially more wetlands elsewhere. But environmentalists have long said that replicating the work of Mother Nature is difficult to do properly and does not make up for destruction of existing, though often degraded, ecosystems.

“All wetlands in Southern California are degraded because we were unfortunate enough to allow all kinds of oil drilling and agricultural production,” Hanscom said. “We didn’t realize how important wetlands were for so long. Now that we do, we’re bringing them back.

“A degraded wetland is like a sick patient,” she added. “Just because someone’s sick doesn’t mean we might as well kill them off.”

Under the state’s landmark 1972 Coastal Act, wetlands can be filled for eight reasons, including wetlands restoration. For years developers have used this exception to justify projects that destroy wetlands on the construction site but finance restoration or creation of wetlands elsewhere--a move that environmentalists say ignores the act’s intent.

These views were affirmed by a 1999 state appeals court decision against development on the Bolsa Chica wetlands.

Against this backdrop, other developers have backed down from plans to try to build on wetlands. In November, Hellman Properties LLC, which originally planned to fill nearly 18 acres of wetlands to create a golf course on Hellman Ranch in Seal Beach, agreed to drop the course--along with plans to restore another 9 acres of wetlands and create another 30 acres.

Developer and City Refuse to Back Down

Coastal Commissioners Cecilia Estolano and Pedro Nava challenged the Robert Mayer Corp.’s permit based on the appeals court’s new and narrower interpretation of state wetland laws. A public hearing and vote are scheduled for Feb. 15 at a commission meeting in San Diego.

Unlike other developers who have backed down on the wetlands issue, the Mayer Corp. and Huntington Beach officials plan to fight.

“We and the city of Huntington Beach feel very strongly that our actions are correct from both a legal perspective as well as an environmental perspective,” Millbern said.

Officials say the development was approved by the city before the Bolsa Chica decision, and retroactively applying the appeal court ruling would be akin to changing the rules in mid-game.

“When a public agency takes an action, if the actions can keep changing, how do we go about our business?” asked Larry Brose, vice president of the developer.

Millbern also said the plan is consistent with the Huntington Beach local coastal plan, which was approved nearly two decades ago. Additionally, state guidelines allow flexibility if a wetland is less than one acre, he said.

Millbern said that if the wetland must be preserved, the $500,000 restoration project would be dropped. Brose said preserving the area and a buffer could result in the loss of up to 50 units.

Developers added that such one-size-fits-all mandates are not beneficial to the environment.

“In general, strict interpretation without reasoned judgment is, I think, sometimes not productive for the environment,” Millbern said.

Lucy Dunn, executive vice president of developer Hearthside Homes, said, “It would seem to me that the original intent of the Coastal Act was to protect significant habitat and wetlands. Now we’re protecting anything and, as a result, actually losing opportunities for habitat creation, expansion and consolidation.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Wetland Warfare

Builders and environmentalists are battling over the value of a 0.8-acre wetland in a planned residential development.