State Panel Amends Wetlands Guidelines

The California Coastal Commission on Tuesday repealed provisions in 19-year-old guidelines that developers have tried to use to justify destroying wetlands and other sensitive habitats.

Staff members of the state agency said attempts by developers to use the guidelines were a confusing, costly waste. Litigation over the Bolsa Chica wetlands alone cost taxpayers $25,000. The agency is also eager to avoid being required by the Legislature to conduct a lengthy internal review of all its policies.

The 1981 guidelines were supposed to be a temporary bridge to help cities implement the state’s landmark Coastal Act, which voters approved in 1972 and the Legislature adopted in 1976.

The two provisions that were repealed Tuesday allowed the filling of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas for uses not specified in the Coastal Act.

Hearthside Homes, eager to develop the Bolsa Chica area near Huntington Beach, used the guidelines to persuade the state agency to approve filling the wetlands and nearby fragile habitats for residential development. The project was stopped in the courts, which ruled that the Coastal Act supersedes the guidelines.

The commission’s staff hopes Tuesday’s vote will negate the need for a comprehensive review of all its policies and guidelines. Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) has authored a bill that would require such a review to ensure the policies conform with the law.

The guidelines revised by the commission Tuesday drove the creation of the bill, which is to be heard in an Assembly committee next Tuesday.

If approved, the review would be a tremendous amount of work, commission Executive Director Peter Douglas said. “Hopefully this will allay their fears and cause this legislation to disappear,” he said.

Tuesday’s vote at the commission’s monthly meeting in Santa Barbara was nearly unanimous, with nine commissioners voting to repeal the provisions. Shirley S. Dettloff, also a Huntington Beach city councilwoman, was the only commissioner to abstain. Her city had incorporated the guidelines into its local coastal program--the ordinances that planning officials use to approve developments.

Dettloff said she was hesitant despite assurances by commission staff and lawyers that repealing the provisions would have no effect on her city’s ordinances. The commission is being sued for upholding a Huntington Beach approval to fill a tiny wetland area, based on its local coastal program.

The city approved a project by Robert Mayer Corp. that included filling in 0.7 acres of degraded wetlands for residential development. Mayer is compensating for the loss by creating 2.8 acres of wetlands and restoring other habitat. The commission upheld the city’s approval at its April meeting in Long Beach. Several prominent environmental groups have sued, saying the approval violates the Coastal Act.

Dettloff questioned how it would appear in court if she had voted to rescind the guidelines that her city relied upon in its local ordinances.

“What happens in a courtroom when an attorney says, ‘You said they weren’t necessary’?” she asked.