Local environmentalist is critical of Heal the Bay‘s methods of restoring the Malibu Lagoon. The project, as well a gas station site project, will be heard by the Coastal Commission next week.
By Jonathan Friedman / The Malibu Times
At its meeting next week in San Luis Obispo, the California Coastal Commission will vote on the second phase of the Malibu Lagoon restoration plan, which is criticized by some environmentalists. The commission will also consider an appeal of the city approval for a small office building at the site of an abandoned gas station not far from the Malibu Pier.
The lagoon restoration project is headed by the State Department of Parks and Recreation in connection with the State Coastal Conservancy. The nonprofit Heal the Bay has offered its advisement on the project plans that have been developing for more than a decade.
Phase one was completed two years ago with a redesigned parking lot that uses a reduced footprint to free up more habitat space and contains features that curb storm water flow.
The second phase aims to “increase hydrologic flow” through re-vegetation of native wetland and upland plant species and removal of nonnative plant species. Also, construction of a public access trail around the lagoon is proposed, as well as new public information and education signs.
Lagoon restoration began in 1983 at the site where Malibu Little League was once played. Current project leader Mark Abramson said the initial work was flawed because it was done “when wetlands restoration was in a primitive phase.
“The lagoon is not functioning very well,” he said of an area that has minimal species diversity, excessive nonnative vegetation and circulation issues.
Sarah Sikich called this project “a long-awaited opportunity to restore critical wetland habitat in the Santa Monica Bay,” and a chance to “improve habitat conditions and enhance water quality.”
But not everybody in the environmental community is pleased. Marcia Hanscom, who heads various environmental groups, said the project will destroy a large amount of existing habitat.
“They are going to completely come in and bulldoze and grade everything away,” she said. “And that’s a big problem. That is not restoration.”
She said there is no need to use machinery because all dirt and vegetation movement can be done by hand by community members. Abramson said that is not a good idea.
“I am the king of doing restoration work with community volunteers,” he said. “But this is 52,000 yards of dirt that is going to be moved around. You would need a lot of people with a lot of time to move it by hand. And that would probably be more disruptive than doing a one-time effort over 45 days to re-engineer the lagoon a little bit.”
Abramson and Sikich said this project has been heavily scrutinized by experts and others affected by it, including those living and working near the project site. Input has come from a variety of sources, with Abramson referring to this as a “stakeholder-driven project.”
Hanscom said there is not enough free-flowing information, and she blames this for the reason her organizations are the only environmental groups publicly opposed to the project. She said she is in communication with others in the environmental community to get the word out.
Coastal staff has recommend the project be approved. If a majority of the commission accepts this, construction could begin next June and be completed by October, Abramson said.
The coastal panel will consider next week an appeal of the Malibu Planning Commission’s June approval of a 2,500-square-foot office building at the site of an abandoned gas station and temporary eco-friendly car wash and detailing service. The site is on Pacific Coast Highway, directly across from the PierView and Windsail properties.
The appeal was filed by Pat Healy of the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth, an organization that has Healy as its only publicly known member. She said it violates a number of Malibu Local Coastal Program features, including those concerning height, landscaping and open space requirements, wastewater treatment and parking.
But Healy’s appeal might not get a hearing. For the Coastal Commission to hear an appeal, it must determine there is a “substantial issue” regarding the local government’s approval that should be further reviewed. This is usually a formality, but for this item coastal staff says no substantial issue exists.
“The development is relatively minor in scope, doesn’t have a significant adverse effect on significant coastal resources, has little precedential [sic] value, and doesn’t raise issues of regional or statewide significance,” the staff report states.
A majority of the commission must reject the staff recommendation for the appeal to go forward.
Both items will go before the commission on Thursday. Live streaming video can be viewed at www.coastal.ca.gov.
The video is available in the archives shortly after completion of the session.