The head of the Coastal Commission says the project will go forward unless it is officially stopped.
By Paul Sisolak / Special to The Malibu Times
A lawsuit filed against the California Coastal Commission to halt the Malibu Lagoon State Park restoration project won’t stop it from going forward until the agency is served with the necessary paperwork, Peter Douglas, its executive director, said.
“It’s our intent to proceed [with the restoration],” he said, stating that his office has not yet received word on the suit. “We feel we more than adequately addressed coastal access issues when it went before the commission.”
The legal challenge, filed on Dec. 3 by a trio of environmental advocacy groups, contends that the Coastal Commission violated the state Coastal Act when it unanimously voted in October that the $7 million project should go forward. The commission authorizes final approval for such projects completed within the state coastal zone.
The Wetlands Defense Fund (WDF), Access for All, and the Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network (CLEAN), which banded together as plaintiffs in the case, have maintained that the project, which they say includes bulldozing away non-native vegetation, will decimate sensitive wetlands and endangered fish in the lagoon. It also takes away accessibility rights to beachgoers, they say, with the removal of two popular beach trails, also part of the restoration plan.
They claim in their lawsuit that “there are less destructive ways to engage in habitat restoration. Alternatives to the project are available that would protect existing resources and enhance and maintain public access to the sea.”
Access for All’s attorney, James Birkelund, said the Coastal Commission has also ignored several California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) rules by approving the restoration.
“There are some clear violations of the law with this decision. There hasn’t been enough consideration of the habitat,” he said. “A false choice is being presented that we must destroy existing wetlands. There are better solutions to achieving short-term and long-term goals.”
Marcia Hanscom, WDF executive director and CLEAN managing director, said the legal action has the backing of more than 4,000 petitioners who would like to see an alternative method to saving the local wetlands.
“We would like the decision reversed and for a more gentle and community-engaged restoration. We don’t think what they’re doing is restoration,” she said. “It’s odd to call a plan that when you’re removing native restoration and killing endangered fish. It’s not appropriate for a lagoon ecosystem that is so fragile.”
Steve Hoye, director of Access for All, said by removing the trails, Surfrider Beach is effectively removed as a tourist destination, as well.
“Here we have one of the most popular state beaches, and we’re just taking it away,” he said. “This is just basically engineering, doing it for the sake of spending the money. I think it’s a disastrous plan.”
Opponents of the restoration decided to take to the courts following the Commission’s 10-0 October vote, and afterward, a $4 million grant last month that the state Wildlife Conservation Board awarded the California Department of Parks and Recreations to lead construction work on the project.
Supporters of the pending project maintain that an original restoration attempt from 1983, intended to encourage better lagoon water flow, needs redoing because the wetlands are backed up with sediment. If current restoration plans aren’t allowed to begin at their June 2011 start date, they could further degrade beyond repair, said Douglas of the Coastal Commission.
“It’s been in the works for a long time and there’s long-standing concern over the deteriorating condition of the lagoon,” he said. “I think it’ll improve access and improve quality and biological productivity, and integrity of the lagoon.”
Douglas could not comment on what immediate legal action the Coastal Commission would take regarding the lawsuit.
“We think it’s a good project,” he noted. “I understand that people have differences of opinion with the commission, but I think it’s unfortunate that a good project like this is being attacked and causing public resources, in my view, to be wasted.”