O.C. Tollway Approved by State Coastal Panel : Planning: San Joaquin Hills route will cut through rare wetlands, but commission cites job creation.

SANTA MONICA —  Citing a need to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the California Coastal Commission on Wednesday voted to allow construction of the San Joaquin Hills toll road even though it will damage rare coastal wetlands near Upper Newport Bay.

By approving the toll road, commissioners defied a staff recommendation that they stop the plan because its bridges across San Diego Creek would violate a state ban on new highways in coastal wetlands.

After a three-hour public hearing, Orange County’s sole commissioner--Huntington Beach Councilwoman Linda Moulton-Patterson--suggested that tollway officials give $400,000 for wetlands improvements in the area, over and above the estimated $8 million they plan to spend as mitigation for bulldozing wetlands along 15 streams.

Commission Vice Chairwoman Lily Cervantes of Salinas said she was not abandoning protection of the environment in voting for the project. “The environment includes people,” she said. “When someone is unemployed . . . their environment is changed.”

Coastal Commission approval was one of the last roadblocks to construction of the tollway, a $1-billion, 17.5-mile road that would extend the Corona del Mar Freeway from MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach to Interstate 5 near San Juan Capistrano. Officials hope to start construction sometime next summer or fall.

Total damage to Orange County’s freshwater wetlands exceeds 14 acres, but the Coastal Commission has direct authority only over San Diego Creek, because it lies within the state’s coastal zone.

Although job concerns lay behind the decision, the vote was technically rooted in the controversial, so-called “balancing” section of the state’s Coastal Act.

Commission attorney Ralph Faust Jr. told commissioners that in order to make an exception to the ban on new highways through wetlands, they must find that other interests protected by the Coastal Act, such as improved beach access, outweighed wetlands concerns. The panel then cited the tollway’s potential for providing traffic relief for those headed for the coast.

Stunned by the decision, environmentalists said they are considering a lawsuit.

“I think it’s an outrage,” said Michael Fitts, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Everyone can sympathize about jobs . . . but to ignore the intense deterioration of coastal sage scrub and wetlands habitats is absurd . . . and this project will not solve our transportation ills.”

“They should rename this panel the Coastal Employment Commission,” said Beth Leeds, a Laguna Beach environmentalist.

Added San Clemente Councilman Tom Lorch, “You can rename this group the Coastal Economic Development Council.”

But Commissioner David L. Malcolm of Chula Vista summarized the position of the panel’s majority when he said: “The endangered species nobody is talking about is the California working person. . . . Does anybody care about jobs?”

Tollway officials on Wednesday ran advertisements in Orange County newspapers featuring President-elect Bill Clinton and stating that the tollway agency is ready to help him create jobs. The ads said 1,500 people would be put to work on the project. Tollway officials said the the ads were not timed to influence the commission’s vote, and ran only in Orange County.

But Laguna Beach Councilwoman Lida Lenney cited those ads in saying: “You have seen here today the desecration of the Coastal Act. . . . Ultimately this was a jobs issue, and they were told by their staff that jobs can’t be used for this decision. It’s a setup.”

Fitts said the NRDC will consult with other groups before deciding whether to file a lawsuit challenging Wednesday’s decision.

Tollway officials were ecstatic after the decision.

“It’s a very big hurdle,” said Mike Stockstill, spokesman for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency. “Obviously we’re grateful.”

“We’re delighted,” said Rob Thornton, the tollway agency’s attorney. “The $400,000 deal caught us by surprise . . . but you always come to these meetings expecting to make adjustments.”

Replacing existing wetlands with man-made wetlands is a risky venture. Many of the projects fail, often from neglect or technical problems, according to biologists, and there is no proof that the new ones are as biologically valuable to wildlife as the natural ones.

The road builders had earlier resolved the most pressing concern about coastal wetlands by altering the route to avoid Bonita Reservoir. But the road would still mean major alterations to San Diego Creek.

The creek would be excavated, and bridges and supports would be installed, according to tollway officials. Nearly two acres would be temporarily affected, while less than a fifth of an acre would be permanently damaged.

The San Joaquin Hills road will cross a total of 15 streams, damaging about 14.3 acres of wetlands, mostly in the Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel areas. Included is Aliso Creek, a coast-to-foothills stream that has maintained much of its natural state.

Lined with willows and sycamores, fresh-water wetlands are recognized as a rare and rich resource in California, used as nesting and foraging grounds by birds and pathways by animals such as deer and mountain lions. In all, 91% of the state’s wetlands have been lost to development and agriculture.

Wednesday’s debate at the commission hearing was a battle of competing videos and slide shows as well as prepared speeches. Tollway proponents spoke first, with several speakers emphasizing the two decades of planning and mitigation efforts that have gone into the project.

Their primary arguments: that even the Coastal Commission staff had acknowledged that the tollway bridges over San Diego Creek were the least damaging alternative for the project; that the commission has previously allowed highway construction in wetlands, especially in San Diego County, and that much development along the route has been approved on the assumption that the tollway would be built.

“If there is no” tollway, Dana Point Councilwoman Eileen Krause told the commission, “there will be pressure to widen Pacific Coast Highway. . . . There is no way to widen Pacific Coast Highway without taking many homes and businesses. The human and financial cost would be enormous.”

More than a dozen critics of the tollway spoke in opposition, including Laguna Beach’s Lenney, who attacked the theory that the tollway is needed to enhance coastal access. “We can’t accommodate any more cars,” she said.

Commissioners were bitterly divided on the tollway’s permit application.

“I think this is horrible policy,” argued Gary Giacomini, the commission member from the Marin County Board of Supervisors. “Because development is approved, we back into approving the road. . . . We’re the last bastion to stop that.”

Giacomini also criticized commissioners who cited previous exceptions to the ban on new highways in coastal wetlands. “Those were some of this panel’s worst decisions,” he said. “I for one don’t want to see them repeated.”

In the end, it was Moulton-Patterson’s suggestion that the tollway agency pay an extra $400,000 for wetlands restoration that made project palatable for some panel members.

“This is a very, very tough decision for me,” Moulton-Patterson told her colleagues on the commission. “Unfortunately, most of the development (along the route) has already occurred. . . . We have to get people to and from their jobs.”

“I sincerely believe this project would greatly enhance public access,” said Moulton-Patterson, who cited figures supplied by the tollway agency that indicate the project would create 1,500 jobs.

After the hearing, Moulton-Patterson said: “I’m sure a lot of people still won’t be satisfied, but we need the project. . . . It is a balancing act. It really is.”

The final environmental hurdle for the tollway is a federal permit for damaging wetlands, which is expected early next year. The Army Corps of Engineers is to hold a permit hearing at 7:30 p.m. Dec. 8 at El Toro High School.