Coastal Commission Denies Revocation of Malibu Lagoon Permit

“There’s not a single shred of evidence that would have to be proven for us to entertain revocation,” California Coastal Commissioner Jana Zimmer said.

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — The California Coastal Commission denied a request for revocation of a permit for the Malibu Lagoon Restoration and Enhancement Project Wednesday in Santa Cruz.

In a unanimous vote following an hour long hearing, the commission shot down the revocation request from Marcia Hanscom of the Wetlands Defense Fund and Roy van de Hoek of CLEAN, who made the drive from Southern California.

“Apart from the fact there is not a single shred of evidence that’s been presented that would be needed to support the contentions that would have to be proven for us to even entertain revocation. I’m especially concerned with and supportive of the finding that this petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in bringing this request to us,” Commissioner Jana Zimmer said.

Commissioner Richard Bloom, who also sits on the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission and recused himself in a 2010 vote on the project's permit, commended Coastal Commission for analyzing the revocation request.

"At some point things have to end. I hope that no further challenges will be filed. It’s time to put things to rest and complete this project," Bloom said.

Under state law, a permit can be revoked if the application for the permit included inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information.

During public comment, Hanscom took aim at the process for the project’s environmental impact report, which was approved by former State Parks Director Ruth Coleman.

“The environmental impact report was never approved, never had a hearing, never had public comment,” Hanscom said.

Hanscom said a public records request showed that California State Parks Department and its governing body, the State Park and Recreation Commission, never held a public hearing on the project's environmental impact report.

Van de Hoek highlighted the discovery of the South Coast Marsh Vole, a sensitive species by putting up several photos.

“In that assessment, in the EIR that was never certified, there were detailed reports on birds. There were reports on flora that was thorough, there was a report that was on insects … There was a 30-page report on fishes,” van de Hoek said.

He said there was no survey of mammals.

“It turns out there is mammal life there,” van de Hoek said.

He said the bridges, which have since been removed, aided the mammals and birds at the lagoon.

“It was a wildlife corridor and birds nest under the bridges,” van de Hoek said.

Showed a photo of a heron eating a vole at the lagoon.

“The vole is not there now, as you can see,” he said.

Van de Hoek ended his comments by reading a document and a shout out of “Save the Lagoon.”

According to David Wiseman, an attorney for California State Parks, the State Parks Commission is not required to approve project specific EIR that is consistent with general plan.

“It was not timely and not filed with due diligence,” Wiseman said. “These types of revocation requests are really broad for the intention of causing delay."

Wiseman also asked the commission to consider granting a request from State Parks to recoup attorneys fees and other costs to staff.

Hope Schmeltzer, chief counsel for the California Coastal Commission, said the commission did not have the power to grant that type of request.

After the hearing, Hanscom said she still plans to monitor the project and advocate for any habitat that has not been disturbed.

"We might decide to challenge this denial of revocation. We might decide to go to federal court," Hanscom said, adding that she will determine the best use of her time and resources in the coming weeks.

She said the hearing's location in Santa Cruz prevented several Malibu surfers and activists from attending.

Craig Sap, District Supervisor for the California State Parks Los Angeles District, attended the hearing and said he was pleased with the decision.

“The commission vote solidifies our position that this project will repair decades of damage to the wetlands at the lagoon and re-establish natural processes that support cleaner water and healthier wildlife,” Sap said.

He added that he hopes there are no further challenges to the project.

"It is an expense. It is an expense on State Parks," Sap said. "... They should be working with state parks, not against State Parks."

Shelley Luce, executive director of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, said she attended the hearing to show support for State Parks and to let the commission know "about the thoroughness of the work that we've done and the incredibly high level of protection and the resources that we've accomplished during the project."

"I'm not at all surprised at the outcome. It's clear that the few who oppose this project have reached a level of desperation where they are kind of throwing things out there to see what sticks and everybody knows it," Luce said.

John Davis August 10, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Suaznne, See page 150 of the Planing document for State Parks. A program EIR is a type of first-teir of one project. Any subsequent projects are tiers of the program EIR, and individual projects all are part of the EIR/General Plan. Upon resolution of of the legislative body to approve, the State Parks Commission at a public meeting, the NOD is then transmitted to the State Clearinghouse. I understand you provided the Notice of Determination to the State knowing that the legislative body had not approved such a resolution. Your statement makes no sense as it regards the required process, what is the legal basis for your statement? Also, the issue of lack of Commission approval has never been before the Courts. John Davis
Hans Laetz August 10, 2012 at 04:53 PM
That point was extensively argued before the judge in San Francisco, by Hansom's attorney. The judge specifically rejected it.
M Stanley August 10, 2012 at 05:33 PM
State Parks made repeated claims of support from the City of Malibu which was untrue. I also do not buy into the claim of "at previous hearings every responsible regional and local conservation and environmental group supported (and supports) the lagoon restoration plan!". Given the false reporting of the so-called "support" from the City of Malibu, every bit of that sentence is tainted and suspect. The use of the term 'responsible' is an interesting slant and one that I think renders the statement more propaganda and marketing than factual reporting or opinion. Judgemental applications have no merit, would you please identify which groups you deem to be irresponsible if you intend to apply such a tainted view Ms. Stein? Maybe you should confer with Suzanne Goode and Mark Abramson to get THEIR views on naming names...I'd love to hear how you come up with the analysis of applying such judgements.
Ted Vaill August 10, 2012 at 06:24 PM
Disgusting result. This saga is not over yet by a long shot. People are going to jail over this and they work for the government. And no real choice for state Assembly-which Lagoon destroyer to vote for?
Cece Stein August 11, 2012 at 04:04 AM
"Disgusting result?" Ted? How about you come down to the lagoon and see what "disgusting" looks like in the form of the trash and ZERO signs of life coming out of the CAL TRANS FILL. Give us a break for god's sake. The Coastal Commission SHOT THE REVOCATION DOWN and ridiculed the "frivolous nature of the complaint" by the WETLANDS DEFENSE FUND. Accept it and move on. Unless you want to write a check for attorney's fees.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »