Coastal Panel Asks Feds to Delay Ruling

In an effort to quell a brewing controversy over its role, the California Coastal Commission on Friday announced it has asked federal officials to delay ruling on whether the panel can join in crafting habitat conservation plans.

The surprise move to seek a delay until late December gives California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols time to analyze the Coastal Commission’s role in shaping the plans, which allow developers to build on sensitive habitat in exchange for setting aside large chunks of land elsewhere.

It comes a day after the commission voted in Oceanside to push for a place at the planning table with federal and state agencies, despite the misgivings of California’s top environmental official. Thursday’s action was criticized by groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Building Industry Assn. and the Agricultural Council of California.

“The controversy that has been swelling is blowing this issue out of proportion,” commission Executive Director Peter Douglas said Friday. “Intentional misrepresentations are creating an atmosphere of hysterics here and leading to very clouded thinking.”

After speaking with Nichols on Thursday evening, commission Chairwoman Sara Wan and Vice Chairman Dave Potter told Douglas to ask the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management for a 60-day delay. A decision had been expected by the end of October.

*

Douglas announced the request for a delay Friday morning at the commission meeting. Federal officials appear willing to go along with the commission’s request but must finalize their assent, Douglas said.

“I think it’s a very prudent move,” Nichols said of the new timetable. The earlier vote on what was “supposedly a routine request was causing such consternation--not only among developers and cities, but among sister and brother agencies at the state and federal level.”

At issue is the commission’s role in shaping habitat conservation plans. Douglas said consultation in habitat conservation plans already is within the commission’s jurisdiction under federal law, but formalizing the commission’s involvement would allow the agency to avoid having to seek consultation rights on a case-by-case basis.

Key unsettled issues remain. Nichols said the state Department of Fish and Game is the lead state agency on habitat conservation planning and has legal authority for biological aspects of planning.

“I think people are legitimately concerned about what the Coastal Commission intends to do with respect to substituting its judgment for the judgment of the biologist on matters of habitat and species protection,” she said.

*

A report from Nichols’ agency about the roles of Fish and Games and the Coastal Commission in planning is expected Dec. 1. Nichols said she envisions the commission dealing with only land-use elements in the coastal zone, a swath of land along the Pacific Ocean from Mexico to Oregon.

Wan said that while the agency places substantial weight on state Fish and Game biologists, the commission cannot wholly defer such analysis. The commission provides for discussion of biological issues in a public forum, unlike the state Department of Fish and Game, she said.

Nichols expressed concern about the broad wording of the commission’s request. She said the agency, with its limited resources, should focus on habitat conservation plans in the coastal zone.

Susan Jordan, a board member with the League for Coastal Protection, disagreed, saying that inland habitat conservation plans could have tremendous effects on coastal resources, such as wetlands.

The one thing everyone agrees on is the benefit of two public hearings that will be held on the subject, one at the commission’s November meeting in Los Angeles and a second--after Nichols’ report is released--at its December meeting in San Francisco.