Wetlands Development Loophole Could Close

The California Coastal Commission could as early as Tuesday scrap a 19-year-old loophole to the Coastal Act that developers have tried to use to justify destroying wetlands.

Would-be developers of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and Seal Beach’s Hellman Ranch relied on a set of guidelines, originally adopted in 1981 as temporary measures, to persuade coastal commissioners to allow the developers to fill marshlands. Both approvals were later stopped in the courts.

But staff members of the powerful state agency say constant attempts to use the guidelines are a confusing, costly waste--the Bolsa Chica lawsuit alone cost taxpayers $25,000 and countless hours.

“Given the number of people running around waving these guidelines . . . I felt that we ought to eliminate that confusion and just repeal (them),” said Peter Douglas, the commission’s executive director.

The guidelines were adopted by the commission in 1981 to help cities implement the Coastal Act, which was approved by voters in 1972 and adopted by the state Legislature in 1976.

Internal discord among the commission’s staff in those years led to the inclusion of a provision that allowed the filling of degraded wetlands if the developer financed restoration of wetlands elsewhere--something that officials say violates state law.

Sara Wan, commission chairwoman, agreed with Douglas.

“They’re out of date and not applicable,” she said about the guidelines, citing a 1982 court case that found the Coastal Act took precedence over the guidelines.

In April 1999, a state appeals court ruled against the commission’s reliance on the guidelines to approve development of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and of two “environmentally sensitive habitat areas,” in the same proposed residential development, saying the land was protected by the Coastal Act. A drastically altered version of the Bolsa Chica project is scheduled to come before the commission in August.

Following the precedent-setting Bolsa Chica ruling, the parties involved in a similar suit over Hellman Ranch settled out of court. The site’s developer agreed to scuttle plans to fill in nearly 18 acres of wetlands for a golf course, and dropped a mitigation plan to restore nine acres of wetlands and create 30 more acres to make up for the loss. A revised project proposal will likely come before the commission this year.

On Tuesday, the commission will hold a public hearing on eliminating troublesome provisions in the guidelines. Though commissioners may take immediate action, Douglas said there will likely be at least one more public hearing first. Commission staff had explored getting rid of all the guidelines, but both developers and environmentalists objected because of helpful sections, such as the definition of a wetland.

Environmentalists say the commission’s likely revoking of certain provisions comes just in time.

“Developers are looking for any nook and cranny to stick their toe into to dismantle or undermine or weaken the protections for environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands in the Coastal Act,” said Susan Jordan, board member of the League for Coastal Protection. “It’s so obvious, and we’re fighting it on all fronts.”

But developers say the move will only remove flexibility in the planning process.

“I do think the environment loses when decision makers do not have flexibility as a tool,” said Lucy Dunn, executive vice president of Hearthside Homes, developer of the project now limited to the Bolsa Chica mesa.

Not allowing mitigation projects “seems to me like missing an opportunity by saving these odd little urban pieces, instead of being able to create and restore” larger ecosystems, Dunn said.