## Facts

- Bolsa Chica was a 1,588-acre area in coastal Orange County containing extensive wetlands and two upland mesas, surrounded largely by urban development.
- A eucalyptus grove on the mesa functioned as raptor habitat and was treated as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act.
- A wetland feature known as “Walden Pond” lay in the path of a proposed road-widening project tied to anticipated development.
- Orange County submitted a Local Coastal Program (LCP) to the California Coastal Commission for certification affecting land within Bolsa Chica.
- The LCP contemplated residential development affecting wetlands, removal of the eucalyptus ESHA with creation of replacement raptor habitat off-site, and filling Walden Pond to widen an existing road.
- The Commission approved the LCP, accepting: (1) off-site replacement habitat as sufficient mitigation for ESHA removal; (2) wetlands residential development based on wetlands “degradation” and asserted restoration funding; and (3) Walden Pond fill as an “incidental public service” connected to road widening.
- Environmental and public-interest groups challenged the approval by writ of mandate in the Superior Court of San Diego County.
- The trial court upheld ESHA relocation, but set aside approvals for wetlands residential development and Walden Pond fill, remanded to the Commission, and awarded attorney’s fees to the challengers.
- The challengers, the Commission, and the developers sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal, which consolidated the proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the Coastal Act permits destruction of an ESHA solely because the loss is mitigated by creating comparable habitat off-site.
2. Whether the Coastal Act allows residential development in wetlands based on assertions that the wetlands are degraded and the project would fund restoration elsewhere.
3. Whether filling a wetland pond to widen a road serving development qualifies under statutory provisions allowing certain “incidental public service” uses in wetlands.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to the challengers.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in allowing ESHA destruction based only on off-site mitigation and reversed that portion of the judgment.
- The Court of Appeal agreed that, on the administrative record, residential development in the wetlands was impermissible and affirmed the trial court’s ruling setting aside that approval.
- The Court of Appeal agreed that, on the administrative record, destruction of Walden Pond for road widening was impermissible and affirmed the trial court’s ruling setting aside that approval.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the attorney’s fee award, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- The Coastal Act does not allow destruction of an ESHA simply because the impacts are mitigated off-site; mitigation cannot substitute for statutory limits on uses that significantly disrupt habitat values.
- ESHA destruction, at minimum, requires a showing that the action is necessary to serve an environmental or economic interest recognized by the Coastal Act, beyond a mitigation “trade.”
- Wetlands may not be filled or developed except as specifically authorized by statute; residential development is not a permitted wetlands use merely because wetlands are characterized as degraded or because restoration funding is proposed.
- Statutory exceptions allowing certain public-service-related uses in wetlands are construed narrowly, and the agency must support applicability with an adequate record showing compliance and justification.
- Attorney’s fees for successful public-interest enforcement of coastal protection laws may be upheld on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal tightened Coastal Act protections by rejecting ESHA removal justified solely through off-site mitigation, affirmed invalidation of wetlands residential development and Walden Pond fill on the Commission’s record, and upheld a discretionary attorney’s fee award to the successful challengers.


Bolsa Chica Land Tr. v. Superior Ct., 71 Cal. App. 4th 493, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 850 (Ct. App. 1999)